LexGULJAR SINGH & ORS. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 1080 A GULJAR SINGH & ORS. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2578 of 2009) WITH B (Civil Appeal Nos. 2577 And 2579 of 2009) APRIL 15, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] c Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Deputy Director, Consolidation - Powers of - Held: DDC is conferred with wide powers to adjudicate the issues posed before him - He could modify even the basic year entries, if > D found to be wrongly recorded - He has power to correct the khatauni entries - In the instant case, it cannot be said that either DOC or High Court exceeded their jurisdiction - After creation of State of Uttaranchal, all notifications issued by Government of Uttar Pradesh are applicable to State of E Uttarancha/ - Therefore, the authority concerned could exercise power of DOC - Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000- ss. 86 and 88. Constitution Of India, 1950: F Article 136 - Scope of - Held: Supreme Court would interfere only when there is gross irregularity in the judgment of High Court or if a substantial question of law of public importance has been raised in the petition - In the instant case, there was no perversity/arbitrariness in the judgment of G High Court in affirming the well reasoned findings recorded by the DOC, the same can not be interfered with in exercise of power under Article 136. >- The land in dispute admeasuring 564 bighas, which was purchased along with other lands jointly by MS', the H 1080 '· GULJAR SINGH & ORS. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR 1081 CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. father of the appellants, and other persons, on division A of shares of joint owners in the year 1951, fell in the share of the said MS'. It was the case of the appellants that in the year 1959 an application was moved before the Sub- Divisional Officer stating that 17 tenure holders had divided the property in 1951, but their names were not B recorded in revenue records over the property in their shares and possession. The said application was allowed, but the names of the tenure holders were not entered in the relevant records. Again during the correction proceedings, MS', the father of the appellants, c filed an application before the Asstt. Recording Officer on 11.1.1963 to give effect to the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, and though the application was allowed, the revenue records were not corrected, However, during the consolidation proceedings, the Consolidation officer 0 allowed the claim of MS', but directed that since 'MS' had co-opted his son, nephews, brothers and wife of his deceased brother as co-tenants, his share in the property was reduced. On appeal, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) set aside the order of Consolidation E Officer and directed that entries in record of rights may be made in accordance with order of Sub-Divisional Officer passed on 31.8.1959. The Deputy Director of Consolidation at the first instance rejected the revision petition of the appellants, but consequent upon the order of remand passed by the Allahabad High Court, allowed F their revision petition petitions by his order dated 20.10.2004. Meanwhile the State of Uttaranchal came into existence and the appellants filed writ petition before the Uttaranchal High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the instant appeals were filed. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It has to be noted that the proceedings started under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953 H 1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R. A and the allocation of Chaks were made pursuant to the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the DOC, after duly considering the claims of the parties. It is well settled that the DOC is conferred with wide powers under the Act to adjudicate the issues posed before him. He B could proceed to modify even the basic year entries if found to be wrongly derived at. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the DOC could not have modified the basic year entries. The Khatuani prepared in the Bandobast was incorrectly made and the courts below including the c DOC had been duly conferred with power the Act to correct the same. In correct the entries as per the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, passed on 31st of August, 1959 but the same was not complied with.[Para 14 and 15] [1093-D, E; 1095-B-C] D Sheo Nand & Ors. vs. Deputy Consolidation Allaha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.