KHAZAN SINGH & ORS. versus HUKAM SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 21-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
636 
KHAZAN SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
HUKAM SINGH & ORS. 
September 21, 1976 
[H. R. KHANNA, N. L. UNTWALTA AND JASWANT SINGH, Jll 
B 
Writ iurisdiction-High Courts cannot i11terfere with a /i11di11g of fact based 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
11pon the relevatzt circ1unsta11ces and 
~vhen it is not shown to he perrerse--
Co11stit11rio11 of /11dia, Article 226. 
The appellants raised an obje:tion before the consolidation authoritks clai·m-
ing joint tenancy with the respondents in respect of khatas 150, 369 and 391, 
which was rejected except in respect of khaia 1 50. 
The respondents filed an 
appeal against the orders relating to khata 150. 
The appellants filed cross-
appeals in respect of khata 369 and 391 and cross objection in respect of khata 
no. 150. 
The Settlement Officer rejected the cross appeals as time barred and 
allowed the respondents' appeal holding that the appellants were not joint tenants 
in khata No. 150. 
Since the revision before the Deputy Director of C011'olida-
tion failed, the aiµpel!ants filed a wtit petition for a writ of ceniorari. which 
was dismissed in limine. 
Dismissiug the appeal by certificate, the Court, 
HELD : The position in law is clear that the High Court in a writ petition 
cannot interfere with a finding of fact as long as that finding is based upon 
the relevant circumstances and is not shown to be perverse. 
Jn the instant case, 
the finding of the Settlement Officer is essentially a finding of fact and was 
arrived at after consideration of the relevant entries in the revenue records; 
the finding was not also interfered with in revision and the same cannot be 
interfered with in: a writ petition. [637F-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 
1643 
of 
1968. 
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19-8-1965 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Misc. 
Writ No. 5475 /64). 
A. K. Sen and E. C. Agarwala, fol! the appellants 
Mis. J. P. Goyal & Pal Singh, for respondents Nos. 1-7. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J.-This appeal on certificate is against the order of 
Allahabad High Court whereby that Court dismissed in limine the writ 
petition filed by the appellants, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash 
the order dated June 15, 1964 of the Settlement officer and the. order 
dated September 17, 1964 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation of 
Holdings. 
The dispute between the parties relates to khata No. 150. 
The 
appellants raised objection before the consolidation authorities 
on 
the ground that they along with the respondents were joint tenants in 
Khatas Nos. 150, 369 and 391. The Consolidation Officer rejected the 
claims of the appellants in respect of khatas 
N,l~ 369 and 391. 
He, however, 
held 
that the appellants were joint tenants 
alon~ 
with the respondents in khata No. 150. 
The respondents went up 
in appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer in so far as 
he had held that the appellants were joint tenants in khata No. 150 
Cross-objections were filed by the appellants in respect of the disallo-
wance of their objection regarding khata Nos. 369 and 391. 
The 
+ . ' 
KHAZAN SINGH v. HUKAM SINGH (Khanna, J.) 
63 7 
.cross-objections of the appellants were dismissed by the Settlement 
.Officer on the ground that they were barred by time. 
So far as khata 
No. 150 is concerned, the Settlement Office11 held that the appellants 
were not joint tenants in th~t khata. 
The appeal filed; by the respon-
dents was consequently allowed and the objection filed by the appellants 
.before the Consolidation Officer was dismissed in toto. 
The order 
of the Settlement Officer ii\ this respect is dated June J 5, 1964. 
The 
appellants then went up in revision, but the revision was dismissed by 
the Deputy Director of Consolidation as per order dated September 
17, 1964. 
The appellants thereafter filed the writ petition for a writ 
-of certiorari to _quash the orders dated June 15, 1964 and September 
17, 1964. 
The said petition, as stated, above, was dismissed. 
We have heard Mr. Sen' on behalf of the appellants and· Mr. Goyal 
·on behalf of the respondents and are of the opinion that there is 
no 
merit in this appeal. 
The question with which we are concerned is 
whether the appellants are joint tenants in khata No. 150 along with 
the respondents. 
In this respect we find that the Settlement Officer 
.examined the entries in the revenue records. 
It was found that so far 
as the land in dispute is concerned, it was held in Fasli 1280 hy

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