Page 1

NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4457 OF 2005

SHRI JAGDAMBA PRASAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. APPELLANTS VS.

KRIPA SHANKAR (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ORS.  ... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

This  appeal  is  filed  by  the  appellants  

questioning the correctness of the judgment and final  

Order  dated  2.9.2003  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4688

Page 2

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

of 1974, urging various facts and legal contentions in  

justification of their claim.  

Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to  

appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find  

out whether the appellants are entitled for the relief  

as prayed in this appeal.

2. The  appellants  filed  objections  before  the  

Consolidation Officer for the deletion of the name of  

one  Bhukhali  (father  of  the  respondents)  since  the  

appellants allege that this name has been fictitiously  

mentioned in the revenue records pertaining to Khata  

no. 63 of Village Badhaiya, Pargana Kewai. The plot  

Nos.  552,  570  and  574  in  the  present  case,  are  

registered  in  the  names  of  the  landowners  Mahadev,  

Shambhu  Nath  and  Bhukhali  respectively.  Mahadev  and  

Shambhu  Nath  belong  to  the  same  family  whereas  

Bhukhali was the resident of another village.  

3. Objections were initially filed by the appellants  

whose father was 1/3rd share holder of the land which  

2

Page 3

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

was recorded in the name of Bhukhali-the father of the  

respondents. Mahadev and Shambhu Nath, the other share  

holders  of  the  land  conceded  to  the  rights  of  the  

appellants.  Rajpati-  the  son  of  Bhukhali,  was  also  

made a party to the proceedings but neither he filed  

any objection nor he claimed his rights over the land  

in question before the Consolidation Officer.  

4. Objections were however, filed by the Respondent  

nos. 1 and 2 who are the son and daughter of Bhukhali  

and are his legal heirs who are the beneficiaries of  

the  ‘Will’  executed  by  Bhukhali  in  their  favour.  

However, the said ‘Will’ was never produced by the  

Respondent  nos.  1  and  2  at  any  stage  before  the  

authorities/court.  

5. The  Consolidation  Officer  vide  order  dated  

13.7.1971  accepted  the  objections  of  the  appellants  

and  deleted  the  name  of  Bhukhali  from  the  revenue  

records by declaring that the entry of his name in the  

records  was  forged  since  Respondent  nos.  1  and  2  

3

Page 4

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

failed  to  produce  the  alleged  ‘Will’  executed  by  

Bhukhali in their favour. The respondents failed to  

produce any other document to prove their title on the  

land in question.  

6.  Aggrieved  by  the  Order  of  the  Consolidation  

Officer,  Respondent  nos.  1  and  2  filed  an  appeal  

before the Assistant Settlement Officer. The same was  

dismissed vide Order dated 28.1.1972. Rajpati, son of  

Bhukhali, who was made party to the proceedings, also  

filed a belated appeal after about one year of passing  

of the Order dated 13.7.1971 on the ground that he had  

no knowledge about the said Order. The said appeal of  

Rajpati  was  dismissed  by  a  separate  Order  dated  

11.12.1972.  

7.  Respondent  nos.  1  and  2  thereafter,  filed  a  

Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority i.e.  

the  Deputy  Director  of  Consolidation,  Allahabad  

against the Order of the Assistant Settlement Officer  

dated 28.1.1972. However, the Respondent nos. 1 and 2  

4

Page 5

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

produced  certified  copies  of  documents  executed  in  

1934  pertaining  to  auction  sale  of  the  land  in  

question before the Revisional Court. The auction sale  

is in favour of Bhukhali which shows that the share of  

the appellants’ father was purchased by Bhukhali in  

the year 1934. The Revisional Authority, by placing  

reliance on this document of auction sale, vide order  

dated  30.4.1974  reversed  the  Order  of  the  

Consolidation  Officer  and  allowed  the  revision  

petition of the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 stating that  

the entering of Bhukhali’s name in revenue records of  

the land in question had been registered as a co-owner  

even  after  the  abolition  of  zamindari.  Therefore,  

through this Order, the Court upheld the claim of the  

respondents that Bhukhali had purchased the share of  

appellants’ father in an auction sale.  

However, the appeal of Rajpati was dismissed by  

the Revisional Authority on the ground that he had not  

preferred  any  objections  before  the  Consolidation  

5

Page 6

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

Officer claiming his title as a legal heir of Bhukhali  

over the land in question.  

8.  Even at this stage, no Will or other documents  

were  produced  by  Respondent  nos.  1  and  2  to  

substantiate their plea that Bhukhali had given the  

land in question to them through Will or otherwise.  

9.  The appellants, being aggrieved by the Order of  

the Revisional Authority dated 30.4.1974, filed a Writ  

Petition No. 4688 of 1974 before the High Court of  

Judicature  at  Allahabad  on  the  ground  that  the  

Revisional  Authority  could  not  have  accepted  the  

secondary  evidence  at  the  stage  of  revision  and  

reversed  the  concurrent  findings  of  the  Appellate  

Authority.  

10. The  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  

dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants on  

the ground that the appellants have not been able to  

prove  the  ownership  and  title  over  the  land  on  

expunction of the name of Bhukhali from the revenue  

6

Page 7

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

records.  The  learned  Single  Judge  further  observed  

that the rights of Bhukhali in respect of the land in  

question  cannot  be  negatived  on  the  basis  of  the  

documents pertaining to Auction Sale of 1934 produced  

by  respondents  Nos.  1  and  2  before  the  Revisional  

Authority in favour of Bhukhali.  

It  was  further  observed  by  the  learned  Single  

Judge that Rajpati, the son of Bhukhali is still alive  

and even if the Will on the basis of which Respondent  

nos. 1 and 2 are claiming their right is not accepted,  

the rights of Bhukhali, which accrued to him on the  

basis of the auction sale, have to pass on Rajpati who  

is the natural legal heir and in no case, rights of  

Bhukhali can pass on to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.  

11. It  is  contended  by  Ms.  Sangeeta  Bharti,  the  

learned counsel for the appellants that the learned  

Revisional Authority failed to take into consideration  

that the appellants were in continuous possession over  

the land in question even prior to 1934. It is further  

7

Page 8

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

contended that the Revisional Authority exceeded its  

jurisdiction  under  Section  48  of  the  U.P.  

Consolidation  of  Holdings  Act,  1953  (in  short  ‘The  

Act’)  in  entertaining  additional  documents  for  the  

first time without any explanation as to why these  

documents were not produced by them earlier in the  

proceedings. Further, the certified copies produced by  

the  respondent  Nos.  1  and  2   are  only  secondary  

evidence and have to be proved before they could be  

considered by the Revisional Authority, particularly,  

when the concerned documents were not produced before  

the Original and Appellate Authorities.  

12.  The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents,  

on  the  other  hand,  contends  that  the  Revisional  

Authority rightly placed reliance upon the document of  

auction sale and came to the conclusion that the title  

of the land vests on Bhukhali and therefore the same  

are conferred upon his legal representatives. Hence,  

the  finding  of  fact  recorded  by  the  Revisional  

8

Page 9

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

Authority has been rightly concurred by the High Court  

in the impugned judgment.

13. Based on the rival factual and legal contentions  

raised  by  the  parties,  the  following  points  would  

arise for our consideration :

   1. Whether the Revisional Authority exceeded  

its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Uttar  

Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in  

entertaining  additional  document  at  revision  

stage?

   2.  Whether  the  High  Court  was  correct  in  

concurring with the findings of the Revisional  

Authority?

3.   What order the appellants are entitled to?

Answer to Point No. 1  

14. Section 48 of the Act is pari materia to Section  

115  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  1908.  It  is  

pertinent to mention at this point the decision of  

9

Page 10

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

this Court given in the case of Sher Singh  v. Joint  

Director  of  Consolidation  &  Ors.1 The  relevant  

paragraphs read as under:

“4. The principal question that falls  for our determination in this case is  whether  in  passing  the  impugned  order,  the  Joint  Director  of  Consolidation, exceeded the limits of  the  jurisdiction  conferred  on  him  under Section 48 of the 1953 Act. For  a proper decision of this question,  it is necessary to advert to Section  48 of the 1953 Act as it stood on the  relevant date before its amendment by  Act VIII of 1963:

“Section  48  of  the  U.P.  Consolidation  of  Holdings  Act.— The  Director  of  Consolidation  may  call  for  the  record  of  any  case  if  the Officer (other than the  Arbitrator) by whom the case  was decided appears to have  exercised a jurisdiction not  vested in him by law or to  have  failed  to  exercise  jurisdiction  so  vested,  or  to  have  acted  in  the  exercise of his jurisdiction  illegally  or  with  substantial irregularity and  may pass such orders in the  case as it thinks fit.”

1 (1978) 3 SCC 172

1

Page 11

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

5. As  the  above  section  is  pari  materia with Section 115 of the Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  it  will  be  profitable to ascertain the scope of  the  revisional  jurisdiction  of  the  High  Court.  It  is  now  well-settled  that  the  revisional  jurisdiction  of  the High Court is confined to cases  of illegal or irregular exercise or  non-exercise or illegal assumption of  the  jurisdiction  by  the  subordinate  courts.  If  a  subordinate  court  is  found to possess the jurisdiction to  decide a matter, it cannot be said to  exercise  it  illegally  or  with  material  irregularity  even  if  it  decides the matter wrongly. In other  words,  it  is  not  open  to  the  High  Court  while  exercising  its  jurisdiction under Section 115 of the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  to  correct  errors  of  fact  howsoever  gross  or  even errors of law unless the errors  have relation to the jurisdiction of  the court to try the dispute itself.”

     (Emphasis laid by this Court)

15. According to the legal principle laid down by this  

Court in the case mentioned above, the power of the  

Revisional Authority under Section 48 of the Act only  

extends to ascertaining whether the subordinate courts  

have  exceeded  their  jurisdiction  in  coming  to  the  

conclusion. Therefore, if the Original and Appellate  

1

Page 12

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

Authorities  are  within  their  jurisdiction,  the  

Revisional Authority cannot exceed its jurisdiction to  

come to a contrary conclusion by admitting new facts  

either in the form of documents or otherwise, to come  

to the conclusion. Therefore, we answer point no. 1 in  

favour  of  the  appellants  by  holding  that  the  

Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under  

Section  48  of  the  Act  by  admitting  documents  at  

revision  stage  and  altering  the  decision  of  the  

subordinate courts.  

Answer to Point No. 2 16. Having said that the Revisional Authority exceeded  

its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act, we have  

to hold that the High Court erred in concurring with  

the findings of the Revisional Authority by failing to  

observe that the Revisional Authority has exceeded its  

jurisdiction conferred upon it under the Act. The High  

Court  further  erred  by  recording  its  reason  by  

interpreting the facts of the case. The appellants had  

1

Page 13

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

moved  the  High  Court  by  way  of  a  Writ  Petition.  

Therefore,  it  is  pertinent  for  us  to  mention  the  

findings of this Court in the case of Tata Cellular v.  

Union of India2 which has been reiterated in the case  

of Heinz India Private Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Uttar  

Pradesh & Ors.3 This Court, in Tata Cellular case made  

the following observation:

 “77.  The  duty  of  the  court  is  to  confine  itself  to  the  question  of  legality. Its concern should be : 1.  Whether  a  decision-making  authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of  natural justice, 4.  reached  a  decision  which  no  reasonable  tribunal  would  have  reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to  determine whether a particular policy  or particular decision taken in the  fulfilment of that policy is fair. It  is only concerned with the manner in  which  those  decisions  have  been  taken. The extent of the duty to act  fairly will vary from case to case.  Shortly put, the grounds upon which  an  administrative  action  is  subject  

2 (1994) 6 SCC 651 3 (2012) 5 SCC 443

1

Page 14

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

to control by judicial review can be  classified as under : (i)  Illegality  :  This  means  the  decision-maker  must  understand  correctly the law that regulates his  decision- making power and must give  effect to it. (ii)  Irrationality,  namely,  Wednesbury unreasonableness.  (iii) Procedural impropriety.”

Therefore, the High Court has failed to observe that  

the  Revisional  Authority  exceeded  its  jurisdiction  

under Section 48 of the Act and it has further erred  

in  concurring  with  the  decision  of  the  Revisional  

Authority  on  factual  grounds  which  is  beyond  the  

jurisdiction of it.

Answer to Point No. 3 17.  Having answered point nos. 1 and 2 in favour of  

the appellants, it is now pertinent to mention as to  

what relief the appellants are entitled to.  

On the basis of the factual and legal material  

evidence produced on record, we uphold the decision of  

the  Appellate  Authority  rendered  by  the  Assistant  

1

Page 15

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

Settlement Officer and set aside the Orders of both  

the  Revisional  Authority  and  the  High  Court.  The  

appeal is allowed accordingly, but without costs.  

        ………………………………………………………………………J.

           [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]                                                       

                  ............................J.             [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi,      April 4, 2014  

1