MUNARI Vs. SUMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri B. N. Asthana, senior advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Mishra, advocate for the contesting respondent.

(2.) THE order dated 5.11.1984, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) THIS argument has emphatically been disputed by Sri K. M. Mishra appearing for the contesting respondents. He submitted that in the Amended Act, revisional powers have considerably been enlarged. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is well within his right to examine the record of any case decided by subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority. No doubt the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not expected to disturb the finding of fact unless it is perverse or against the weight of evidence. Sri K. M. Mishra has annexed the gift deed alongwith counter-affidavit and has placed the part of the deed where it has specifically been stated by the executor that another gift deed was simultaneously executed in favour of Smt. Munari Devi, and also at the concluding part of gift deed a note has been appended where the name of Munari Devi has been struck off. THIS part of the evidence was completely overlooked by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and it was in these circumstances, the revisional court recorded its finding on the basis of evidence. He has cited a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Nand and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 2000 (91) RD 213 (SC) : 2000 (2) AWC 1276. Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said decision are quoted below :