TEEKA RAM Vs. LAKHI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, opposite party No. 10, in appeal and by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, opposite party No. 11, who did not entertain the revision application filed against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

(2.) The dispute between the parties related to a khata which stood in the name of Tota Ram and his five sons. Teeka Ram petitioner was also a son of Tota Ram, but his name was not recorded as a co-tenant of the khata. The contention of the sons of Tota Ram, who were recorded as tenants, and their descendants was that the share of the petitioner in the khata after the death of Tota Ram was only one-thirty sixth and not one-sixth as shown in the revenue papers. The Consolidation Officer, Anupshahr, district Bulandshahr, dismissed the objection by his order dated Sept. 30, 1963. On appeal the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, opposite party No. 10, reversed the order of the Consolidation Officer and held that the share of the petitioners was one-thirty-sixth of the khata. That order was passed on Feb. 13, 1964, after the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, No. 6 of 1963, had come into force. The present petitioner filed a revision application before the Director of Consolidation, but it was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, opposite party No. 11, by his order dated March 19, 1964, on the ground that there was no provision in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood prior to the amendment of 1963, for a revision being filed against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, does not suffer from any infirmity. An appeal against an order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Anupshahr, district Bulandshahr, lay to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, and the latter arrived at a finding of fact upon the consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary. The finding of fact arrived at by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, cannot be questioned.