D. P. Wadhwa, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated September 24, 1980 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the review petition of the appellant. Earlier writ petition of the appellants filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated April 30, 1980. Appellants had sought quashing of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the 'Act'). Deputy Director of Consolidation had allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondents under the Act holding the respondents to be the owner in possession of plot bearing No. 301, village Khakhra Khurd Tappa Sahila, P. O. Khan Naugarh, Distt. Basti. By that judgment, the Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer.
(2.) During consolidation proceedings in the village the respondents, successors of Ram Khelawan, filed objection under S. 9 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer claiming that they are owners of plot No. 301 having acquired the same in auction in 1914 in a suit pending in the Court of Munsif. It was submitted that Ram Khelawan father of the respondents, got a decree against Bhagwati, father of the appellants, in a suit filed by him for recovery of loan given by Ram Khelawan to Bhagwati, father of the appellants. Respondents contended that they have been in possession of the plot since then. In support of their claim they produced copy of the judgment of the Munsif's Court, the sales certificate and copy of Khatauni for the period of 1359/F and 1324/F. Appellants claimed that they were never dispossessed all through 1914 and that they have been in possession of the plot and have since perfected their title by adverse possession. In support of their claim, the appellants submitted before the Consolidation Officer copy of the "khewai" and entry in register of 1914. By his order dated January 20, 1972 the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the respondents. Matter was taken in appeal to the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer by the respondents who dismissed the same by order dated March 8, 1972 holding that the respondents had never filed any claim on the basis of auction sale with regard to the land. More than 12 years having elapsed since the sale, the appellants had perfected their title by adverse possession. The respondents did not rest there and filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There was dispute regarding the number of the plot. It was found that the sale certificate in favour of the respondents mentioned Plot No. 82/2 (old) though new number of the plot was 301. It was made up of old plot Nos. 88/1 and 88/2. Boundaries of the plot bearing No. 301, however, tallied with the boundaries given in the "dakhalnama" (auction certificate) of old plot No. 82/2. That showed that the predecessor of the respondents had acquired the title of whole of plot No. 301 (new). Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the claim of the appellants that after the auction of the plot in favour of Ram Khelawan, no steps were taken to obtain possession of the same. There was a suit in which decree was based (passed) in favour of Ram Khelawan. Auction of the plot was held for recovery of the decretal amount. It was purchased by Ram Khelawan and sales certificate granted in his favour. Deputy Director of Consolidation further observed that it was not possible to accept the contention of the appellants that having gone through all the processes, Ram Khelawan would not get possession of the plot. He, therefore, returned the finding that as per record plot No. 301 (new) comprised of plot No. 88/1 and 88/2 (old) and that the "Dakhalnama" showed Ram Khelawan, predecessor of the respondents was in possession. Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer as well as that of the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed and the review also met the same fate.
(3.) It was submitted by the appellant that under S. 48 of the Act, Deputy Director in exercise of his powers of revision could not upset concurrent findings of fact by the Consolidation Officer and on appeal by the Settlement Officer. Section 48 of the Act was amended by the Amendment Act 8 of 1963. Before its amendment S. 48 read as under:- "The Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case if the Officer (other than the Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit." ;