- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the parties and also perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23-1-1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the contesting Respondent No, 2, Shri Kamla Prasad Singh. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that in the basic year, over Khata No. 19 Kha, for short 'the land in dispute name of the petitioner Smt. Bechna was recorded. Objection under Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', was filed by Respondent No. 2 claiming that the name of the petitioner in the revenue papers was farzi, it was liable to be expunged and that the said respon dent was entitled to one half share in the land in dispute. The objection filed by Respondent No. 2 was contested by the petitioner pleading that it was on 13-11-1956 that a sale-deed was executed by Respondent No. 2 in her favour on the basis of which, she applied for mutation of her name in the revenue papers. Her name was mutated after due notice to the said respondent on the basis of sale-deed ex ecuted by Respondent No. 2. Long there after in the year 1978 that the village where the land in dispute is situated, came under the operation of the Act. In the objection field by Respondent No. 2, the validity of the sale-deed was not challenged on the ground that at the time of execution of the sale-deed, the said Respondent No. 2 was minor. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases before the Consolidation Officer. In the evidence, it was attempted to prove that at the time of execution of sale-deed, Respondent No. 2 was minor, therefore, the sale-deed in question was void. The Consolidation Officer, after going through the evidence on the record, al lowed the objection filed by Respondent No. 2 by his judgment and order dated 30-1-1979. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dealt with the matter in detail and after hearing the parties, it was held that the sale deed was duly executed by Respondent No. 2 after receiving the full consideration and that he was major on the dale of execution of sale deed. The name of the petitioner was, thus, rightly recorded over the land in dispute in the revenue papers. It was also held that the petitioner was also in possession of the same. Having recorded the said findings, the Settlement Officer Consolidation al lowed the appeal field by the petitioner by judgment and order dated 11-11-1982. The Respondent No. 2,. thereafter, filed a revision challenging the validity of the order of the Settlement Officer Consolida tion. The Deputy Director of Consolida tion reversed the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and al lowed the revision by the impugned order. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation was the last Court of the facts, he could look the propriety of the orders passed by authorities below but could not himself act as the Consolidation Officer. It was urged that in case the find ings recorded by the authorities below were found illegal or perverse, he could set aside the said finding but could not sub stitute his own findings for the said find ings. It was also urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not meet the reasoning given by the Settlement Of ficer Consolidation in upholding the claim of the petitioner and allowing the appeal, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was liable to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Coun sel for the Respondent No. 2 supported the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was urged that the order passed by the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation is concluded by find ings of fact, which are based on material evidence on the record, they are not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has got no merit, the same deserves to be dismissed. Ave considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.;