LexRAM BAHAL &ANR. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 11 S.C.R. 390 RAM BAHAL &ANR. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.3594 OF 2011) OCTOBER 8, 2015 [RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] c UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Dispute pertaining to certain plots - Said plots in the name of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the basic year record, however; name of appellants shown to be recorded in possession column - Consolidation proceedings - Appellants claimed D their right over the land by virtue of their possession and entry in their favour in the revenue records - Petition by respondents seeking expunction of the names of the appellants since they were wrongly recorded - Petition allowed by the Consolidation Officer - However; in appeal, E Settlement Officer; Consolidation permitted the appellant's name to be recorded as Seerdar over the said land - Said order set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation holding that the predecessors of respondents were recorded as sub-tenants and by virtue of entry in their favour; they F became Adhiwasi and Seerdar - Writ petition by the appellants - High Court upheld the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Deputy Director, Consolidation excluded those Khasra!Khatauni in which there G were over writings or some unwarranted entries - Order passed by the Deputy Director holding that the contesting respondents acquired the right of Adhiwasi!Seerdars was not based on re-appreciation of evidence afresh - It was only a H case of examining the correctness and validity of the entries 390 RAM BAHAL v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 391 AZAMGARH in the Khasra/Khatauni - Further, appreciation or re- A appreciation of evidence must come to a halt at some stage of the judicial proceedings and cannot percolate to the constitutional court exercising, jurisdiction under Article 136 """. Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 136. Smt. Sonawati and Ors. vs. Sri Ram and Anr. AIR 1968 SC 466: 1968 SCR 617; Jhutan Singh vs. Badri & Ors. 1962 Revenue Decisions 239; Bhurey vs. Pir Bux 1973 ALJ 313; Laxmi Narain B vs. D.D.C., Varanasi 1986 Revenue Decisions C 410; Pir Khan vs. Dep1,1ty Director of Consolidation, District Kanpur 1965 ALJ 591; Leela Rajagopal & Ors. vs. Kamala Menon Cocharan & Ors. 2014 SCR 697: 2014 (10) Scale 307 - referred to. D Case Law Reference 1968 SCR 617 referred to. Para 10 1962 Revenue Decisions 239 referred to. Para 10 E 1973ALJ 313 referred to. Para 10 1986 Revenue Decisions 410 referred to. Para 10 1965ALJ 591 2014 SCR697 referred to. Para 10 referred to. Para 14 C1VILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3594 of 2011 F From the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2003, G 24.03.2005 and 20.09.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at · Allahabad in Civil fylisc. Writ Petition No. 24 7 of 1977, Civil Misc. Review/Recall Application No. 176256 of 2003 and Civil Misc. Review Application No. 116087 of2005 H 392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A Ajay Kumar Misra, Anuradha D. Mishra, Tulika B Mukherjee, D.V. Singh, P. Narasimhan for the Appellant. R. K. Gupta, S: K. Gupta, M. K. Singh, B. P. Gupta, Shekhar Kumar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2003, passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 247 C of 1997 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition preferred by the appeilants herein while confirming the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and the Consolidation Officer dated 11.11.1976 and 29.03.1974 D respectively. Brief Facts: 2. The dispute relates to Plot Nos. 795, 796 and 903 situated in village Bahauddinpur, DistrictAzamgarh. The said E plots were admittedly recorded in the name of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the basic year record. The names of the appellants were shown to be recorded in the possession column. In the consolidation proceedings, both the appellants and the respondents filed their objections. The appellants F claimed their right over the land in question by virtue of their possession and entry in their favour in the revenue records. However, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 prayed for expunction of the names of the appellants who have been wrongly recorded. Oral and documentary evidence were filed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.