JAFRI BEGUM Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioners assail the validity of the Revisional order, dated 19-7-1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (Respondent No. 1) in Revision No. 30/69 (copy appended as Annexure-3) remitting back Case No. 633/1212/542 to the Consolidation Officer, Civil Lines, Allahabad for taking the opinion of Government expert and also further evidence in regard to the question as to whether on the disputed gift deed there is signature of Tayeebun Nisa or some one else?

(2.) THE case of the petitioners that the deed in question was executed by one Tayeebun Nisa, which was disputed by respondents 2 and 3, who also adduced evidence including the opinion of the Handwriting Experts, was accepted by the first two consolidation authorities. THE submissions:

(3.) THE extent and scope of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the "act was explained by the Supreme Court in Ram Dular (supra) as follows: ". . . . . . . . It is clear that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact finding authority by appreciating for itself of those fact de novo. It has to consider whether the legally admissible had not been considered by the authorities in a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by it is based on no evidence or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding. "