JAGDAMBA PRASAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. Vs KRIPA SHANKAR (DEAD) THR. LRS. .
Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA,V. GOPALA GOWDA
Case number: C.A. No.-004457-004457 / 2005
Diary number: 25448 / 2003
Advocates: Vs
P. NARASIMHAN
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
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