BIHARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing a writ peti tion filed by the appellant. The dispute giving rise to this special appeal is in regard to certain plots of land situate in village Munderwa Tahsil and District Basti. The aforesaid village was brought under consoli dation operation and the name of the appel lant stood recorded in the basic year. Rupai respondent No. 6 filed an objection that of the plots in dispute he was a co-tenant along with Badal, that Badal died issueless and consequently he alone was entitled to be recorded over the said plots. The case of the appellant on the other hand was that of the plots in dispute Badal was exclusive tenant and he being the adopted son of Badal inherited the plots in dispute exclusive ly on the death of Badal and that Rupai respondent had no concern with these plots. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the ob jection of Rupai. On appeal however the Settlement Officer Consolidation directed the name of Rupai to be recorded along with the name of the appellant. Two revisions were filed against the order of the Settle ment Officer Consolidation, one by the appellant and the other by Rupai. During the pendency of these revisions the appellant filed certain documents along with an appli cation with the prayer that those documents be admitted as additional evidence. The said application was however dismissed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation on July 27, 1963 and both the revisions were also dis missed. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court which as already pointed out above was dismissed by a learn ed single Judge. The present Special Appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judg ment.

(2.) THE main contention of the ap pellant before us was that the documents which were sought to be filed before the Deputy Director Consolidation as additional evidence were very material for a correct and proper decision of the case and the Deputy Director, Consolidation committed a manifest error of law and in fact refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in reject ing the said application. A certified copy of the order dated July 27, 1963 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation dismissing the application for additional evidence was filed in the writ petition and from its peru sal it appears that the said application was dismissed on two grounds:-

(3.) THE question in regard to the jurisdiction of a revising authority to accept additional evidence again came up for consi deration before the Supreme Court in Arbind Kumar Singh v. Nand Kishore Prasad, AIR 1968 SC 1227. In the said case the scope of the powers contained in Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended by Bihar Act XVII of 1950 came up for consideration. It was held: