Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a land dispute between two branches of a family descended from Sheo Sahai. The respondents' branch, represented by Bechu, claimed ownership of certain plots in village Hetimpur, while the appellant's branch, represented by Rajbali, claimed through another brother, Lalji. The respondents filed a petition under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Consolidation Officer, alleging that Rajbali had surreptitiously entered his name in the revenue records without any right. The Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation, and Deputy Director of Consolidation all ruled against the appellant's predecessor, holding that the revenue entries in favor of Rajbali were invalid and should be deleted. The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition challenging these orders. On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the findings were concurrent findings of fact based on consistent revenue entries in favor of Bechu, and that the appellant's predecessor had no claim to Bechu's share. The Court found no perversity or legal error in the findings and dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the Revenue Authorities and the High Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Binding Nature - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Revenue Authorities and affirmed by the High Court, as they were based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse or contrary to law. (Paras 12-15)
B) Land Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9A(2) - Title Dispute - The dispute pertained to the validity of revenue entries in the name of the appellant's predecessor-in-interest. The Revenue Authorities held that the appellant's predecessor had no right, title or interest in the land, which was consistently recorded in the name of the respondents' predecessor. The Supreme Court upheld this finding. (Paras 5-7, 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition and affirming the orders of the Revenue Authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the orders of the Revenue Authorities and the High Court. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were binding and not perverse, and that the appellant's predecessor had no right, title or interest in the land.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- binding nature in writ jurisdiction
- scope of interference by Supreme Court
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
- 1953
Case Details
Civil Appeal No.1299 of 2009
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
T.N. Singh for appellants, P. Narasimhan for respondents
Sudama (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging orders of Revenue Authorities under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the orders of Revenue Authorities and the High Court, and to uphold the revenue entries in favor of the appellant's predecessor.
Filing Reason
Dispute over land title between two branches of a family; appellant's predecessor allegedly surreptitiously entered his name in revenue records.
Previous Decisions
Consolidation Officer (29.07.1977), Settlement Officer Consolidation (12.06.1978), Deputy Director Consolidation (04.05.1983) all ruled against appellant's predecessor; High Court dismissed writ petition on 24.01.2005.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition and affirming the orders of the Revenue Authorities.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding title to the land were liable to be interfered with.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the findings of the Revenue Authorities were erroneous and that the appellant's predecessor had right, title and interest in the land.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that the revenue entries consistently showed Bechu as the owner.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence and not contrary to law are binding on the Supreme Court and cannot be interfered with in appeal, especially when they are supported by consistent revenue entries.
Judgment Excerpts
In our considered opinion, the finding impugned in this appeal being concurrent finding of fact and was rightly held by the High Court as binding on the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, it is also binding on this Court, calling for no interference therein.
On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the land in question was consistently recorded in the name of Bechu in the revenue records through whom the respondents herein had claimed their right, title and interest in the land.
Procedural History
The dispute originated with a petition under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Consolidation Officer, who passed an order on 29.07.1977. The appellant's predecessor appealed to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who dismissed the appeal on 12.06.1978. A further appeal to the Deputy Director Consolidation was dismissed on 04.05.1983. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 24.01.2005. The appellant filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which was converted into Civil Appeal No.1299 of 2009. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives were substituted.
Acts & Sections
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Section 9A(2)
