RAM DULAR versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, JAUNPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 08-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM DULAR 
A 
v. 
DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, JAUNPUR AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 8, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Section 48--RevisioJt-
Scope of power-Director can satisfy himself as to legality or propriety of 
orde~ut cannot assume jurisdiction of original authority as a fact finding C 
authon'ty by appreciating facts de novo. 
The appellant claimed share of his ancestral property on the gound 
that his great grand-father has ancestral property and as a successor-in· 
interest through his grand father he has been in joint possession and 
enjoyment of certain properties as co-khatedar with respondents. The D 
Consolidation Officer considered the family genealogy and on the basis of 
the revenue receipts for 15 years found that the appellant was a co-
khatedar but the entries in 1306 Fasli were fa~ricated. On appeal the 
Settlement Officer held that appellant was entitled to half share of the 
property but he could not have made claim as co-sharer in respect of the E 
self acquired property. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the 
revision and set aside the orders of both the Tribunals; he merely recorded 
the genealogy of the respomlents and their ancestry, omitting the branch 
of the appellant. The High Court refused to correct the mistake on the plea 
that it is a finding of fact and the Deputy Directol' had corrected the 
mistake committed by the authorities in exercise of power under Section F 
48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 19S3. 
In appeal to this Court on the question wh~ther the Director of 
Consolidation was legally justified in upsetting the findings recorded by 
the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer: 
Allowing the apptal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Deputy Director has committed manifest error of law 
by reversing the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Of-
G 
ficer. [739-ff, 740-A] 
H 
735 
A 
B 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) 1 S.C.R. 
2.1. While exercising the revisional power under section 48 of the 
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 the Director has power to satisfy 
himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the 
proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than 
interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in so 
doing he cannot assume to himself the jurisdiction of the original authority 
as a fact finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. 
It has to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been 
considered by the authoriaes in recording a finding of fact or law or the 
conclusion reached by it is based on no evide~e •. any patent illegality or 
impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, 
C which goes to the rest of the matter, had been committed in recording the 
order or finding. [738-E, 739-A-C] 
2.2. The Consolidation Officer recorded the genuineness of the 
entries for the year 1308 Fasli which was not even disputed by the respon-
D 
dents. There is no alternative genealogy filed by the respondents. In the 
entries for 1308 Fasli the name of appellant's grand-father was found to 
be mutated. This vital aspect was omitted to be taken into consideration 
by the Deputy Director who on the other hand concluded that for the year 
1308 Fasli also the name of appellant's grant-father was fabricated. It is 
an obvious error committed by the Deputy Director. [739-E-G] 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1131 of 
1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.1977 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Civil Misc. W. Nos. 1987 & 1989 of 1976. 
Shanti Bhushan, E.C. Agrawala, Anant V. Palli, Mahesh Agrawa)a 
and Atul Sharma for the Appellant. 
J.M. Khanna for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated August 
8, 1977 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1987 of 
1976 whereby the High Court has confirmed the order of the Dy. Director 
H of Consolidation dated September 4, 1976 rendered in batch of revisions. 
' _;___ 
\ 
I 
RAM DULAR v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 
737 
The family genealogy has been considered extensively by the Consolidation A 
Officer, Settlement Officer and Dy. Director. From the geoncalogy it is 
seen that one Dewan was the common ancestor. He had two sons by names, 
Nihut and Mata Palat. Nihut had son by name 

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