DHARAMRAJ AND ORS. versus CHHITAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 06-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DHARAMRAJ AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
CHHIT AN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 2006 
[ARJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-Section 9A(2)-Land acquired 
and recorded in revenue records in the name of common ancestor-
Subsequently land re-settled and recorded in the name of anotf!er family C 
member-Co-tenancy rights claimed in land on the basis that land is ancestral 
land-Successor-in-interest of family members in whose name subsequently 
the lands were recorded claiming exclusive co-tenancy rights in /and-held, the 
identity of land changed and the successors in interest of person whose name 
was duly recorded in place of common ancestor were entitled to succeed to 
the said lands on the basis of identity and resettlement of land 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Interference 
with finding of fact arrived at by consolidation authorities-When-Held, 
when such findings of fact are either perverse or based on no evidence-High 
Court can correct decision of consolidation authorities or declare law on the 
basis of facts and proof of such facts-In the facts, held, High Court has only E 
declared the question of law on the admitted facts and the finding of fact 
arrived at by consolidation authorities-Practice and procedure. 
Objections were filed under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation 
of Holdings Act, 1953 by both appellants and respondents in respect of 
entries in Kha:ta No. 111 relating to the basis year 1378 fasli. Appellants F 
claimed joint co-tenancy rights along with respondent nos. 1 to 3 in respect 
of lands recorded in Khata no. 111 on the ground that the said lands were 
ancestral of lands as they were acquired by the common ancestor of 
parties, S, and were recorded in the name of S and thereafter it was 
recorded in the name of A in representative capacity Respondent Nos. 1 G 
to 3 being succesrnrs in interest of A claimed exclusive co-tenancy rights 
on the ground that lands recorded on Khata No. 111 which initially 
belonged to S was resettled by the then landlord with A and was recorded 
in the name of A in 1338 F. The Consolidation Officer held appellants to 
385 
H 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A be co-tenure holders in respect of said lands with respondent nos. 1 to 3 
and determined share on the basis of pedigree set up by appellants. 
Appeals filed by parties before the Appellate Authority were dismissed. 
Revision filed by parties before the Deputy Director, Consolidation were 
partly allowed by holding respondent nos. 1 to 3 to be exclusive tenure 
B holders of ten plots and by directing recording of names of appellants and 
respondent nos. 1 to 3 as co-tenure holders in respect of remaining plots 
of the Khata. Both parties filed writ petitions challenging the order of 
Deputy Director, Consolidation. High Court dismissed the writ petition 
filed by appellants and allowed the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos. 
1 to 3 and reversed the findings and order of the Deputy Director, 
C Consolidation by holding that lands recorded in the entire Khata No. 111 
must be recorded in the names of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Hence the present 
appeal by persons claiming through S. 
Appellants contended that it was not open to the High Court to set 
aside findings of fact arrived at by the consolidation authorities in exercise 
D of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of 
India ; that Higl: Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the 
ground of maintainability as two of the co-tenure holders were not made 
parties in the writ petition ; and that appellants were entitled to get share 
as per pedigree set up by the appellants on the ground that land was 
E ancestral property. 
F 
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contended that High Court has only declared 
the law on admitted facts and findings arrived at by the consolidation 
authorities ; and that land in dispute was acquired by their predecessor 
by way of settlement and on his dea~h it devolved upon them exclusively. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is now well settled law that in the exercise of its extra 
ordimuy writ jurisdiction High Court is not supposed to interfere with 
the findings of fact arrived at by the consolidation authorities unless and 
G until High Court concludes that such findings of fact are either perverse 
or based on no evidence. It is-well settled position of law by catena of 
decisfons of this Co&rt th

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