SHEO PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. In both these petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, they were, as desired by the learned Counsel for the parties, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 27585 of 1992 shall be the leading case.

(2.) 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 22-6-1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, allowing the revision filed by the contesting respondents under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short, 'the Act'.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the relevant question involved in the case including on the question of execution of a sale-deed by Lautoo. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not reverse the said finding in accordance with law ignoring the entire oral and documentary evidence, by means of a cryptic judgment reversed the orders passed by the authorities below which was contrary to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. It was further urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his jurisdiction in re-appraising the evidence, particularly the reports of hand writing and finger print experts and illegally reversed the orders passed by the authorities below. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by respondent No. 1 was as such liable to be quashed.