RAM PRATAP Vs. HARI SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 9.8.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short, 'the Act'.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that Khata No. 521 consisting of 15 gatas, of village Naroya, district Mirzapur. (for short 'the land in dispute') measuring 4 bighas and 4 biswas was recorded in the name of respondent No. 1 in the basic year. Initially, an objection was filed by Ram Roop, father of Lalchoo, respondent No. 2, regarding the land in dispute but the same was got dismissed. Subsequently, two objections were filed, one by Sita Ram son of Raghunandan and other by Sheo Lochan son of Ganga, predecessor in interest of the petitioners, who claimed the cotenancy rights in the land in dispute and partition of their shares pleading that the land in dispute was acquired by Narpat alias Parvat, that after his death name of Sukaloo was recorded as karta of the family, that thereafter name of Bhim was recorded and that in the same capacity, the name of Hari Shanker was recorded on the land In dispute. The objection filed by Sita Ram and another was opposed by the respondent No. 1, Hari Shanker, who has claimed that the land in dispute was acquired by his father and he was in exclusive possession of the same and the petitioners have got no concern with the land in dispute. In support of their cases, parties have produced evidence, oral and documentary before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer after going through the evidence on the record dismissed the objection filed by Hari Shanker. respondent No. 1, andupheld the claim of the petitioners by his judgment and order dated 12.1.1976. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Hari Shanker filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer. Consolidation, which ultimately came before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who after hearing the parties and perusing the material on the record dismissed the same by his judgment and order dated 21.4.1977. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. Hari Shanker filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after re -appraising the entire evidence on the record' substituted his own findings for the findings recorded by the authorities below and allowed the revision by his judgment and order dated 9.8.1982. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted illegally and in excess of his Jurisdiction in re -appraising the evidence on the record and substituting his own findings for the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below. The Judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is, therefore, liable to be quashed.