Surendra Narain Singh, J. - (1.) These two writ petitions are directed against the order of the Dy. Director (Consolidation) with a prayer for quashing the same. The dispute is in respect of two plots NOS. 386/1 and 387/1. These two plots were recorded in the basic year in the name of the petitioner. An objection was filed by the contesting opposite parties that by virtue of a partition decree of the year 1942, these two plots have been in their possession from the date of the decree right upto the date of the start of the consolidation proceedings. This claim of the contesting opposite parries was countered by the petitioner by alleging that in co -operative consolidation in the year 1951, these plots were allotted to the petitioner and since these plots were allotted to the petitioners, the petitioner did not file any document about the co -operative consolidation on which the petitioner based his claim. The consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) accepted the petitioner's claim, but in revision to Dy. Director (Consolidation) having allowed certain additional evidence to be filed, came to a contrary conclusion and found that even if the case of the petitioner about the plots having been allotted to him in co -operative consolidation in 1951 is accepted, the right of the petitioner got extinguished by virtue of the possession of the contesting opposite parties from 1359 F. to 1367 F. On the finding recorded by the Dy. Director (Consolidation) that the contesting opposite parties remained in possession over the disputed plots from 1359 F. to 1367 F. it was difficult for the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Dy. Director (Consolidation). However, he has taken a legal stand and has submitted that the additional evidence which was adduced before the Dy. Director (Consolidation) should not have been allowed to be adduced. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Dy. Director (Consolidation) had no jurisdiction to allow the lacuna to be filled and that the petitioner was given no opportunity to rebut the documents filed by the contesting opposite parties before the revisional court. There is a counter -affidavit filed in this case and in that counter -affidavit the exact order of the Dy. Director (Consolidation) has been quoted wherein the Dy. Director (Consolidation) appears to have allowed the filing of the documents before him on payment of Rs. 60/ - as costs with a right to rebuttal to the petitioner. In view of the fact that the documents were accepted on payment of costs with a right of rebuttal, the grievance of the petitioner that he was afforded no opportunity to rebut the documents cannot be accepted. The petitioner in support of his contention that the document should not have been admitted relied on Arjan Singh v/s. Attar Singh ( : AIR 1951 SC 193), Mohd. Akbar Khan v/s. Mst. Moti ( : AIR 1948 PC 36) and certain observations in S. Rajopal v/s. C.M. Armugam ( : AIR 1969 SC 101) in para. No. 7 page 104, and emphasized that the Dy. Director (Consolidation) had given no reasons for admitting the additional evidence. A Full Bench of this Court has held that the CPC is not strictly applicable to consolidation proceedings. In Smt. Manbhavati Devi v/s. Dy. Director (Consolidation (1970 RD 378 :, 1969 AWR 183) a learned single Judge of this court held that a Dy. Director (Consolidation) has jurisdiction to admit additional evidence. This decision of the learned single Judge is based on certain observations of the Supreme Court. In my opinion, under the authorities of this Court, a Dy. Director (Consolidation) had jurisdiction to admit additional evidence. So this is not the case wherein the Dy. Director (Consolidation) had no jurisdiction to admit additional evidence. The Dy. Director (Consolidation) had admitted extracts of certified copies of revenue records only by which the claim of the contesting opposite parties, was established. The first two authorities had not accepted the continuous possession of the contesting opposite parties, but on the filing of these documents, the continuous possession of the contesting opposite parties was established.
(2.) From the record it does not appear that the petitioner opposed the filing of the additional evidence. Moreover, he was awarded Rs. 60/ - as costs. There is no averment that the costs were not accepted by the petitioner. In view of the fact that the documents were accepted on payment of costs and opportunity for rebuttal was granted to the petitioner, I see no justification for interfering with the order of the Dy. Director (Consolidation) in admitting the additional evidence for the sake of justice. Once the additional evidence is held to have been rightly admitted, the petitioner has no case. The finding recorded by the Dy. Director (Consolidation) is one of fact and on the finding of fact the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In the result these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs.;