SHER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. versus JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 05-05-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
.B 
SHER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONS:OLIDATION & ORS. 
May 5, 1978 
(N. L. UNTWALJA, JASWANT SINGH AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.j 
[J.P. Co11solidation of Holdings Act, 1953 Section 48-RerisiotuI[ powers. 
of the Joint Director of Consolidation-ScDpe of. 
By lease deed dated July 20, 1945 for a period of ten 
years 
beginning. 
from the year 1353 fasli to the end of the year 1362 fasli, registered in his 
favour, the original appellant ,Sher Singh obtained possession of ten plots of 
land admeasuring 6.63 acres situate 
in 
Mahal 
Safed, 
~1ouza Mahendri,. 
. a. 
Sikandarpur, Pargana Amroha, District Moradabad, U.P. and was mutated in 
~ 
the Revenue Record 
~.s a "hereditary tenant". 
Later, on September 6, 1945 
a sale deed in respect of the proprietary right and interest in the said lands 
were executed by the Zamindars in favour of Kaley Singh. Harbans Singh 
and Nihal Singh, brothers of Sher Singh and one 
Chajju Singh. Asserting 
their right of pre-emption in respect of the afo!ementioned sale on the ground 
of they being co-sharers in the Mahal in which the said plots were situate, 
Jai Kumar Singh and Roop Chand Singh, respondents 2 and 3 herein brought 
four suits in the Court of Munsif, Mor4.dabad against the aforesaid vendors 
and vendees and the original appellant Sher Singh for possession of the land 
as also for cancellation of the lease in favour of Sher Singh on the ground 
that it was fictitious and fraudulent and was executed with a view to defeat 
their right of pre-emption. The suits were decreed as prayed for and 
on 
further appeal confirmed by the Civil 
Judge, 
Moradabad. 
Although 
the 
vendees did not carry an appeal, the original appellant preferred a furthel' 
appeal tD the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal. holding 
that 
the revenue court alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suits seeking relief 
of ejectment of the lessee and the civil court had no jurisdiction, set aside-
the decree passed against him. 
Meanwhile the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act I '.of 1951) came into force with effect· 
from the commencement of the 1360 fasli in July 1. 1952. 
Pursuant to the 
observations of the High Court, Respondents 2 & 3 filed 
ejectment 
suits 
agaimt Sher Singh under section 209 of Act I of 1951, which were dismissed'. 
First appeal~ preferred against them also proved abortive. 
Jn second appeals 
the High Court stayed the orders of the Courts below on account of 
tt.e· 
~ommencement of the consolidation operations in the 
village. Thereafter 
Respondents 2 and.3 filed objections under section 9(2) of the U.P. Consoli-
dation of Holdings Act, 1953 disputing the correctness of the entries in the-
record showing Sher Singh as "Bhuritidar" and praying that the latter's name-
be expunged from the records and in his place their names be substituted 
as Bhumidars, but the same was rejected by the Consolidation Officer IV 
at Ka"Rth. 
The Settlement Officer in first appeal and the , Deputy Director, i!!18Jt1.. 
Con!lolidation, Lucknow in second appeal confirmed it. 
In the revision appli·t ~· 
cation under s. 48 of the 1953 Act, the Joint Director of Consolidation allow-~ 
\" 
ed it, holding that the lease in favour of Sher. Singh was fictitious with int.en- ..._. 
tion to defraud the pre-eroptors and that the claim of respondents 2 and 3 was 
covered by 
Section 18 of the Act. 
The Director, therefore, 
ordered 
the 
substitution of their names in the revenue record as holders of the land 
as 
.. K.hudkhast" (self-cultivating possession). 
The appellant challenged the 
said. 
order by way of a writ petition which was dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal lty special leave, the Court 
HELD : (I) Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Hollings Act, as i.t 
stood on the relevant date, before its amendment by Act No. VIII of 1963 is 
pari 1naterit1 with S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The revisional judsdiction 
of the High Court is confined to cases of illeg4l or irre2ular exercise or non-
exercise or illegal assumption of the juriidiction by the subordinate courts. 
" 
, 
-
• 
-
' 
... 
-
SHER SINGH V. CONSOLIDATION DIRECTOR 
983 
If a subordinate court is found to possess the jurisdiction to decide a matte~'­
it cannot be said to exercise it illegally or with material irregularity eve11: ti 
it decides the matter. '\Vrongly. 
Jn other words, it is not open to the 
High 
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under secti

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