AJAB SINGH & ORS. versus ANTRAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 03-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 836 
AJAB SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
ANTRAM AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 596 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 03, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms 
C Act, 1950: s.341- Held: Findings based on analysis of factual 
aspect by revisional authority was not perverse nor suffering 
from error of jurisdiction - Hence Interference not called for. 
Limitation Act, 1963: s. 6 - Applicability of, to proceedings 
0 under Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms 
Act, 1950. 
In the year 1981 and 1982, the contesting 
respondents were minors. At that time consolidation 
orders were passed by the Consolidation Officer and the 
E Settlement Officer. They filed revision application and an 
application for condonation of delay in the year 1993, 
which were allowed. The said order was affirmed by High 
Court. 
F 
The challenge in the present appeal is that order 
passed by revisional authority was bad in law as it was 
time barred. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD:1.1. Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is 
expressly applicable to the proceedings under the Uttar . 
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 
1950. Section 6 of the 1963 Act engrafts a provision 
enabling a minor to institute a proceeding by way of filing 
H 
836 
AJAB SINGH.& ORS. v. ANTRAM AND ORS. 
837 
a suit or by making an application after he ceases to be 
A 
-+ 
a minor within the time prescribed to any other person 
who is not a minor. The decision of the Revisional 
Authority in entertaining the revision at the instance of 
the contesting respondents therefore does not suffer 
from any jurisdictional error. [Paras 8 and 9] [839-H; 840-
8 
A-B] 
1.2. The appellants have not been able to prove that 
they are in actual physical possession. Inasmuch as it has 
been found that in the year 1377F, in 1379F in 804/3 no c 
possession is shown, in 1382F possession has been 
shown to be of one year, in 1383F in one crop nothing 
has been sown. In 1384F no one has been shown to be 
in possession, Khasra for 1386F has not been filed and 
the Khasras from 1375F to 1385F have been filed, but 
D 
there is no proof of continuous possession. In the 
background of factual position, the findings of the lower 
authorities that the name of the appellants should be 
recorded as Bhumidar is not factually correct. A finding 
which is based on the analysis of the factual aspect by 
th~ revisional authority is normally not upset by a 
Sup~rior Court unless it is demonstrably shown to be 
E 
perverse or suffers from error of jurisdiction. In the case 
in hand, no such case is made out. [Paras 11, 12 and 14) 
.~ 
[840-D-F) 
F 
2. The Deputy Director Consolidation held that the 
appellants were not the actual cultivators and actual 
cultivator cannot be deprived of his land on technical 
ground especially when revisionists belong to a weak 
section of the community as they belong to Scheduled 
G 
Caste (Jatav). There is no error in the aforesaid findings 
~ 
arrived at by the revisional authority. The ordet of the 
High Court, therefore, correctly approved the order 
passed by the revisional authority. There is no reason to 
take a different view. [Paras 13 and 15) [840-G-H; 841-B] 
H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 596 
B 
of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7. 7.2006 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P.No. 2676 of 2006. 
Dr. Madan Sharma, Vijay Kumar Panditya, U.K. Sandyal, 
J.P. Tripathi, Asha Uphadhyay and R.D. Upadhyay for the 
Appellants. 
Dr. Aaaray Lingaiah, Dr. A.K.R. Linga Reddy Patel, H.R. 
c Rathore and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GANGUL Y, J.1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. This appeal arises out of a consolidation proceeding 
under the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition 
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said 
Act'). 
E 
3. A revision application was filed under the provisions of 
the said Act by the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before 
the Deputy Director Consolidation, Agra as they were 
aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer and the 
order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy 
Director reversed the findings of both the Consolidation Officer 
F and those of Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 
4. One of the grievances which has been raised by the 
appellant

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.