KRISHNANAND (D) THROUGH. LRS. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 28-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
. [2014] 11 S.C.R. 1001 
KRISHNANAND (D) THROUGH. LRS. 
v. 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9932 of 2014) 
OCTOBER 28, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction· 
A 
B 
- Scope of - Held: Jurisdiction u/Article 226 cannot be C 
exercised for reappraisal of evidence unless the order 
impugned was passed by the authority without jurisdiction or 
in excess of his jurisdiction, or finding was patently perverse 
- In the present case, High Court in exercise of its writ 
jurisdiction was not right in reversing concurrent finding of fact D 
arrived at by three authorities - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation 
of Holdings Act, 1953. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 
E 
Constitution cannot be exercised for re-appreciating the 
evidence and arrival of findings of facts unless the 
authority which passed the impugned order does not 
have jurisdiction to render the finding or has acted in 
excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently 
F 
perverse. [Para 10) [1007-G, H; 1008-A] 
2. The High Court o'ught not to have entered into re-
appreciation of evidence and reversed the findings of fact 
arrived at by the three authorities below, especially since, 
G 
the authorities had neither exceeded their jurisdiction nor 
acted perversely. The High Court has no where stated 
that it was of the vrew that there is any perversity, much 
1001 
H 
• 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
A less the High Court failed :to demonstrate any such 
circumstances. [Para 11] [1008-C, O] 
Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot 
and Ors. 1975 (2) SCR 71: (1974) 2 SCC 706; National 
B Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Dutta and Ors. 
2009 (10) SCR 1084 : (2009) 8 SCC 339 - distinguished • 
c 
.. 
Case Law Reference: 
1975 (2) SCR 71 
Distinguished 
2009 (10) SCR 1084 
Distinguished 
Para 6 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
9932 of 2014. 
I 
From the Judgment & Order dated 06.05.2013 in WP No. 
D 5289 of 1983 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, 
Lucknow Bench. 
' · 
· 
Ashwani Kumar, Iii Sharma for the Appellants. 
' 
' 
E 
Pradeep Kant, Ardhendumauli Kumar Pras;ad, Vikas, 
F 
Bansal, Divyanshu Sahay, Rakesh K. Sharma for the 
Respondents. 
1 
. 
::1 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. Leave granted .. 
' 
, ~ 
.. 
,,. 
2. The appellants have challenged the Judgment of the. 
Allahabad High Court, Bench at Lucknow, by which the High. 
Court has set aside concurrent orders passed by the1 
G Consolidatiori Officer, Sultanpur, dated 03.02.1982; Assistant 
Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Sultanpur dated 21.05.1982; 1 
and Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur dated, 
17.08.1983. 
": .. 
, ,..J_') 
3. The brief .facts giving riseJo this appeal may be stated{ 
· H .. as below: 
' 
· 
• 
KRISHNANAND (D) TH. LRS. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR 1003 
OF CONSOLIDATION [S.A. BOBDE, J.] 
This dispute relates to Khata No. 201 bearing two Gata$. 
A 
Initially, the land was recorded in the name of Krishna Nand and 
Shiv Ram, sons of Ram Adhar. The relationship between the 
parties is as follows: 
BACHCHU 
r 
B 
SON 
SON 
RAM ADHAR 
RAM SAMUJH 
I 
I 
SON 
SON 
SOLE DAUGHTEF 
c 
KRISHNA NANO 
SHIV 
SMT. KAMLA DEVI 
RAM 
Ram Adhar and Ram Samujh were real brothers, being 
sons of Bachchu. Ram Adhar was elder to Ram Samujh. Kamla 
D 
Devi, Ram Samujh's daughter, claimed that although Ram 
Adhar acted in a representative capacity, the suit-property had 
been purchased jointly by her father and Ram Adhar in 1938 
frcim the Hasanpu'r Estate in District Sultanpur. To stake her 
claim, she relied upon letters and post cards between her father 
E 
and his brother. Ram Samujh passed away on 03.03, 1976, 
. leaving behind Kamla Devi, his sole heir. Ram Adhar and Ram 
Samujh had partitioned the suit property in the year 1941. 
Furthermore, Kam la Devi contended before the HC that the suit 
property was purchased in the name of her Uncle, Ram Adhar 
F . 
in 1938, simply because he was the head of the family. After 
his death in 1964, Ram Adhar's sons, Krishna Nand and Shiv · 
Ram got the suit-property mutated in their name, in spite of the 
fact that Kamla Devi remained in possession of her share. In 
1973, the village where the suit property is located, was notified 
G 
purs.uant to a consolidation operation. Kamla Devi's husband, 
who was at

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