RAM BAHAL &ANR.versusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH & ORS.

                         [2015] 11 S.C.R. 390


A                        RAM BAHAL &ANR.
                                   v.
            DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
                         AZAMGARH & ORS.
B                  (Civil Appeal No.3594 OF 2011)
                          OCTOBER 8, 2015
           [RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
c          UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Dispute
    pertaining to certain plots - Said plots in the name of the
    respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the basic year record, however;
    name of appellants shown to be recorded in possession
    column - Consolidation proceedings - Appellants claimed
D   their right over the land by virtue of their possession and entry
    in their favour in the revenue records - Petition by
    respondents seeking expunction of the names of the
    appellants since they were wrongly recorded - Petition
    allowed by the Consolidation Officer - However; in appeal,
E   Settlement Officer; Consolidation permitted the appellant's
    name to be recorded as Seerdar over the said land - Said
    order set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
    holding that the predecessors of respondents were recorded
    as sub-tenants and by virtue of entry in their favour; they
F   became Adhiwasi and Seerdar - Writ petition by the
    appellants - High Court upheld the order of the Deputy
    Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer -
    Interference with - Held: Not called for - Deputy Director,
    Consolidation excluded those Khasra!Khatauni in which there
G
    were over writings or some unwarranted entries - Order
    passed by the Deputy Director holding that the contesting
    respondents acquired the right ofAdhiwasi!Seerdars was not
    based on re-appreciation of evidence afresh - It was only a
H   case of examining the correctness and validity of the entries
                                    390
 RAM BAHAL v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 391
                   AZAMGARH

 in the Khasra/Khatauni - Further, appreciation or re- A
 appreciation of evidence must come to a halt at some stage
 of the judicial proceedings and cannot percolate to the
 constitutional court exercising, jurisdiction under Article 136
 """. Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 136.
                                                                     B
       Smt. Sonawati and Ors. vs. Sri Ram and Anr. AIR
       1968 SC 466: 1968 SCR 617; Jhutan Singh vs.
       Badri & Ors. 1962 Revenue Decisions 239;
       Bhurey vs. Pir Bux 1973 ALJ 313; Laxmi Narain
       vs. D.D.C., Varanasi 1986 Revenue Decisions                   C
       410; Pir Khan vs. Dep1,1ty Director of
       Consolidation, District Kanpur 1965 ALJ 591;
       Leela Rajagopal & Ors. vs. Kamala Menon
       Cocharan & Ors. 2014 SCR 697: 2014 (10) Scale
       307 - referred to.                                            D

                        Case Law Reference
 1968 SCR 617                       referred to.     Para 10
 1962 Revenue Decisions 239 referred to.             Para 10         E
 1973ALJ 313                        referred to.     Para 10
 1986 Revenue Decisions 410 referred to.             Para 10
 1965ALJ 591                        referred to.     Para 10
                                                                     F
 2014 SCR697                        referred to.     Para 14
      C1VILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
 3594 of 2011

        From the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2003,                G
  24.03.2005 and 20.09.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at
· Allahabad in Civil fylisc. Writ Petition No. 24 7 of 1977, Civil
  Misc. Review/Recall Application No. 176256 of 2003 and Civil
  Misc. Review Application No. 116087 of2005
                                                                     H
392         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A         Ajay Kumar Misra, Anuradha D. Mishra, Tulika
      Mukherjee, D.V. Singh, P. Narasimhan for the Appellant.

          R. K. Gupta, S: K. Gupta, M. K. Singh, B. P. Gupta,
      Shekhar Kumar for the Respondents.
 B
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            R.K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed
      against the order dated 28.07.2003, passed by the High Court
      of Judicature atAllahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 247
 C    of 1997 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition
      preferred by the appeilants herein while confirming the order
      of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and the
      Consolidation Officer dated 11.11.1976 and 29.03.1974
 D    respectively.

           Brief Facts:

         2. The dispute relates to Plot Nos. 795, 796 and 903
   situated in village Bahauddinpur, DistrictAzamgarh. The said
 E plots were admittedly recorded in the name of the respondent
   Nos. 3 and 4 in the basic year record. The names of the
   appellants were shown to be recorded in the possession
   column. In the consolidation proceedings, both the appellants
   and the respondents filed their objections. The appellants
 F claimed their right over the land in question by virtue of their
   possession and entry in their favour in the revenue records.
   However, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 prayed for expunction of
   the names of the appellants who have been wrongly recorded.
   Oral and documentary evidence were filed before the
 G Consolidation Officer in respect of respective cases. The
   Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 29.03.197 4, allowed
   the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein and
   directed for exp unction of the names of the present appellants
 H which were shown to be in possession. Being aggrieved, the
RAM BAHAL v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 393
         AZAMGARH [R.K. AGRAWAL, J. )

appellants preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer, A
Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, vide
order dated 15.12.1975, allowed the appeal and the appellants
were permitted to be recorded as Seerdar over the land in
dispute. Aggrieved by the order dated .15.12.1975, the
respondents filed a revision before the Deputy Director, B
Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide
order dated 11.11.1976, allowed the revision and restored the
judgment and order of the Consolidation Officer dated
29.03.1974. The order dated 11.11.1976, passed by the
Deputy Director, Consolidation, as also the order of the C
Consolidation Officer dated 29.03.197 4 were challenged by
the present appellants before the High Court.

      3. In the High Court, the appellants claimed the acquisition
of their rights on the basis of adverse possession which               D
according to them have been properly examined by the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation and after assessing the
material on record a clear finding of fact had been recorded
regarding continuous possession of the appellants and
                                                                       c:
therefore, it is not a case for interference by the Deputy Director,   .....
Consolidation, in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Further, it was the
case set up by the appellants that there was no perversity in
the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation or that it was      F
based on no evidence and therefore the finding of fact recorded
by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not have been
set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

      4. It was further claimed that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation was not justified in reassessing the evidence G
and to give his own findings and at the most, he could have
remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for giving
fresh findings.

                                                                       H
394       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 11 S.C.R.


A        5. On the other hand, the claim of the contesting
  respondents was that as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation
  has allowed the claim of the appellants therein by takin~
  erroneous approach of the facts and by not properly interpreting
  the entry which has been bro_ught on record, the Deputy Director
B of Consolidation, had every authority to go into the matter and,
  on proper analysis and after appreciation of the entry, to
  disagree with the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
  It is not a case of reassessment of evidence rather it is a case
  of correct interpretation of the revenue entry. It was further
C submitted before the High Court that in the Khatauni extract
  1359 Fasli, the contesting respondents have been shown in
  possession and therefore they becameAdhiwasi and Seerdar
  of the land in dispute and so far possession of the appellants,
D even if it is recorded, having not been proved to be in
  accordance with law, they cannot get any right on the basis of
  adverse possession. Even the entry in favour of the appellants
  has not been found by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to
  be continuous and in accordance with law, and therefore, the
E plea of adverse possession cannot be accepted.

        6. The High Court, after going through the evidence on
  record came to the finding that the Settlement Officer,
  Consolidation has referred to the arguments of the parties at
F quite length but so far as finding part is concerned, has given
  a clear finding, on the basis of the entries, in favour of Ram
  Adhar and thereafter his sons became Seerdar of the land in
  dispute but not the appellants as Seerdar. The High Court
  further held that there is no finding by the Settlement Officer,
G Consolidation that the entry in favour of the predecessors of
  the respondents is valid and correct and there is also finding
  about the rights of the respondents. The Consolidation Officer
  and the Deputy Director, Consolidation had given a finding
  that the predecessors of respondents were recorded as sub
H tenants and by virtue of the entry in their favour, they became
 RAM BAHAL v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 395
          AZAMGARri [R.K.AGRAWAL, J.]

  Adhiwasi and Seerdar which has not been disturbed by the A
  Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The High Court came to
  the conclusion that the finding in favour of the appellants
  appears to have been given by the Settlement Officer,
· Consolidation on the premise that inspite of decree in favour
  of the respondents under Section 229-8 of the U.P. Zamindari B
  Abolition & Land Reforms Act (in short 'the Act') possession
  was not taken from the appellants. By referring the order
  passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the High Court
  came to the conclusion that the Deputy Director, Consolidation
  has not reappraised the evidence but it looked into the C
  correctness and validity of the entries recorded in the Khatauni
  filed by the respective parties. He has referred to each and
  every entry and because there was over writing in some of the
  entries, the Khatauni containing over writings was discarded. D
  The High Court, consequently, declined to interfere in the order
  passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and dismissed
  the writ petition.

       7. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, learned senior counsel
 forthe appellants and Mr. R.K. Gupta and Mr. Shekhar, learned   E
 counsel forthe respondents. ·

        8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
. submitted that the original owner of the Plot No. 903 in dispute
  had migrated to Pakistan and as per the Order of the Custodian F
  dated 17 .10.1957, the year of migration was presumed to be
  1355 Fasli and in that year, the father of the appellants was
  also found in possession by the Custodian up till 1364 Fasli.
  The appellants had to pay 20 times of the circle rate to acquire
  Bhumidari rights under Section 208 of the Act which was paid G
  by the appellants and thus they acquired lawful rights. So far
  as Plot Nos. 795 and 796 are concerned, these plots were in
  the possession of the appellants prior to the enforcement of
  the Act and therefore they were recorded as occupants of the H
396         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A     land in 1355 Fasli to 1359 Fasli. They becameAdhiwasi in
      possession and subsequently Seerdar. Therefore, it conferred
      right to the appellants over the property in dispute.

        9. The contesting respondents are claiming their right
B on the basis of entry of sub tenancy starting from_ 1358 Fasli
  which has been found to be wrong entry by the Settlement
  Officer, Consolidation and therefore not given due weightage.
  Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that in
  view of the above, the respondents had no right nor were in
C possession as they themselves filed a suit being No. 920 under
  Section 229-B of the Act whereby they claimed relief of
  possession from the appellants. The decree passed in the
  said suit stood abated in second appeal vide order dated
  27.05.1974 as consolidation proceedings had started. This
D shows that the respondents were never in possession of the .
  land and the entry coming for the first time in the 1358 Fasli
  was wrong entry and it was never established from any record
  as to how sub tenancy was created in favour of the respondents.
  The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, had therefore, rightly
E held that the appellants became Adhiwasi and thereafter
  became Seerdar.

          10. According to the appellants, the order of the
   Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation
 F as also the High Court are based on some proceedings under
   Section 33/39 of the Land Reforms Act which is a mutation
   proceeding and any admission made in a mutation proceeding
   is not binding on the maker in a title matter. Moreover, in the
   mutation proceedings, the appellants were not party and hence,
 G cannot be relied upon against them. Learned counsel for the
   appellants placed reliance on Smt. Sonawati and Ors. vs.
   Sri Ram and Anr. Al R 1968 SC 466, Jhutan Singh vs. Sadri
   & Ors. 1962 Revenue Decisions 239, Bhurey vs. Pir Bux
 H 1973 ALJ 313, Laxmi Narain vs. D.D.C., Varanasi 1986
RAM BAHAL v. Dl=PUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 397
         AZAMC.:"'\"'; tRK. AGRAWAL, J.]

Revenue Decisions 410 and Pir Khan vs. Deputy Director A
of Consolidation, District Kanpur 1965 ALJ 591. It was,
therefore, submitted that the orders passed by the
Consolidation Officer, Deputy Director, Consolidation and the
High Court be set aside and that of the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation be restored.                                    B

       11. Learned counsel for the respondents, however,
submitted that the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy
Director, Consolidation, had given a categorical finding that
the predecessors of respondents were recorded as sub- C
tenants and by virtue of entry in their favour, they became
Adhiwasi and Seerdar which has not been negatived by the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The appellants are not laying
any claim against the respondents on the basis of the
possession and the authorities have found that there is only D
mention of few Khasra/Khatauni entries without any reference
to even any oral evidence. Merely because the possession
on the basis of the decree in favour of the respondents was
not taken from the appellants, it cannot be said that the
appellants were jn lawful possession of the plots in question. E
Some of the khatauni/khasra contained over writings, and
therefore, they were rightly left aside by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation. Even the appellants could not give the exact
date or the year in which premium had been paid for taking F
the rights in their favour. Even no claim of adverse possession
was established. He further prayed that the judgment and order
  .
passed. by the High Court should be maintained.

       12. We have given our anxious consideration to the
various pleas raised by learned counsel for the parties·. We G
find that the Deputy Director, Consolidation had examined the
various copies of Khasra/Khatauni filed by the parties and had
come to the conclusion that copy of Khasra 1357 crop year
has been filed in which Sumer, father of the present appellants, H
398       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 11 S.C.R.


A   has been mentioned having possession of Land Nos. 795
    including 796. Against Land No. 779, there is a cross mark.
    Against remaining two numbers, no cross mark has been put
    and Sikmi column of khasra is blank. Khasra of 1358 crop
    year has been filed. In this, possession of Sumer has been
B entered in remarks column against Land Nos. 795, 796 and in
    the column of Sikmi, the name of Adhar, s/o Munesar (father of
    the contesting respondents) is entered. In the remarks column
    of Land No. 903, the names and possession of Rohim Palton,
    Sumer, Phenku are entered. This Khasra is not reliable
C because when the name of Sumer was entered in 1357 crop
    year, then recording possession of Sumer again for Land Nos.
    795, 796 in 1358 Crop year and the name of Adhar coming in
    the Sikmi column make these Khasras doubtful. The names
    of Rahim and Palton, having possession on Land No. 903,
0
    are found whereas the Sikmi column is blank which is also
    doubtful. Khasra 1359 crop year has been filed. In this, the
    name of Adhar is mentioned in Sikmi column and possession
    of Sumer, son of Munesar, is mentioned against L.Nos.795,
E 796. Possession is mentioned against L.No.903 and then it
    has been struck off or has been written above Bhopare. In the
    Sikmi column also, there is cutting over the entries against
    this number. Khasra for 1362 crop year has been filed. In this,
    the name of Adhar against L. No. 795 is available as before in
F the Sikmi column. In the L.No. 796 also, the name of Adhar is
    available as before in Sikmi column and in the remarks column
    the name of Sumer s/o Munesar is written. The name of Adhar
    is also available against LNo. 903 and after making entry of
    possession of Adhar and others, this has been struck off and
G Rahim ·and others have been written in their place. Khasra for
    1363 crop year has been filed and it is also like 1362 crop
    year khasra. In L.No.903, the possession of Rahim, Pudan
  . and Sumer and Phenku have been written and there is no entry
    in remaining two numbers.These same entries are found in
H
RAM BAHAL v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 399
         AZAMGARH [R.K.AGRAWAL, J.]

khasra of 1354 crop year. Notice of office of Assistant           A
Custodian (Judicial) has been filed and it has too much
overwriting and the same cannot be relied upon. Copy of
Khatoni of 1366 crop year has been filed in which the name of
Asfaq has been entered in the main column and the name of
 Ram Adhar son of Munesar has been entered in category 9.         B
 In 1368 crop year, the name of Asfaq and others were deleted
and the name of Adhar entered as Seerdar on the basis of
order passed in Case No. 341 under Section 33/39. In 1370
crop year, the name of Bahal, Kirpal are entered as category
9. Khasra 1368 crop year has been filed in which an entry has     C
been recorded that possession of Ram Kirpal, Bahal on L.Nos.
795, 796 has been found. Same entry is also available in
L.No.903. There is no reference of any P. K. No.10 enquiry and
diary number. Hence, this khasra is not at all reliable. Khasra   D
of 1369 crop year has been filed in which as per order of
Girdawar, Kanungo P.No. 10 dated 09.11.1961 entries of
pendency of case are recorded a'gainst L.Nos. 795; 796. The
defendant should not get any benefit of these entries. Khasra
of 1371 crop year has been filed in which the name of Bhobhal     E
and others are entered in the main column.- From the entire
aforestated evidence, it is clear that the name of revisionists
came in existence against land from 1358, 1359 crop year. It
is the case of defendant that they are Seerdar from occupier
on the basis of this possession prior to abolition of zamindari   F
and entries available prior to abolition of zamindari does not
prove the case of defendant because these are doubtful and
not reliable. The Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation),
in his order, has held the possession of defendant continuously
since 1354 crop year which is totally wrong ana incorrect         G
because the name of the defendant for the first time has come
against L.Nos. 795, 796 in 1357 crop year and that too is in
remarks column whereas the Sikmi Column is blank. Hence,
had these entries correct, the name of defendant would have
                                                                  H
400         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 11 S.C.R.


A  come in the column of Sikmi and not in the possession column.
   There is no such evidence that the defendant paid
   compensation to original cultivator after abolition of zamindari.
   Against this, the name of revisionists was entered on the basis .
   of Form No. 101 which proves that compensation was paid to
 B original cultivator. After abolition of zamindari, the name of
   defendant is found against L.No. in 1368 crop year whereas it
   is also doubtful and case of defendant is not on the basis of
   adverse possession as well. Hence, these entries also have
   no importance.
c
            13. From the findings recorded by the Deputy Director,
      Consolidation, it is clear that those Khasra/Khatauni have been
      excluded in which there were over writings or some
      unwarranted entries. If that be the position, then the order
D     passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation holding that the
      contesting respondents acquired the right of Adhiwasi/
      Seerdars cannot be said to l:>e based on re-appreciation of
      evidence afresh. It is only a case of examining the correctness
      and validity of the entries in the Khasra/Khatauni filed by the
E     parties.

        14. The case laws relied upon by the counsel for the
  appellants have no bearing upon the issues involved in the
  present appeal. We may mention here that this Court in Leela
F Rajagopal & Ors. vs. Kamala Menon Cocharan & Ors. 2014
  (10) Scale 307 in para 14 has held that appreciation or re-
  appreciation of evidence must come to a halt at some stage
  of the judicial proceedings and cannot percolate to the
  constitutional court exercising, jurisdiction under Article 136.
G For ready reference, para 14 is reproduced below:-

           "Before parting we would like to observe that the very
           fact that ari appeal to this Court can be lodged only upon
           grant of special leave to appeal would indicate the highly
H
RAM BAHAL v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 401
         AZAMGARH [R.K.AGRAWAL, J.]

      circumscribed nature of the jurisdiction of this Court. In A
      contrast to a statutory appeal, an appeal lodged upon
      grant of special leave pursuant to a provision of the
      Constitution would call for highly economic exercise of
      the power which though wide to strike at injustice
      wherever it occurs mµst display highly judicious B
      application thereof. Determination of facts made by the
      High Court sitting as a first appellate court or even while
      concurring as a second appellate court would not be
      reopened unless the same give rise to questions of law C
      that require a serious debate or discloses wholly
      unacceptable conclusions of fact which plainly
      demonstrate a travesty of justice. Appreciation or re-
      appreciation of evidence must come to a halt at some
      stage of the judicial proceedings and cannot percolate . D
      to the constitutional court exercising jurisdiction under
      Article 136."

       15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the
High Court does not call for any interference hence the appeal     E
fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties shall
bear their own costs.

Nidhi Jain                                     Appeal dismissed.