Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE dispute relates to Khata Nos. 38 and 193 situate in village Muda Dih, Tappa Deoria, Pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria. THE said village was brought under the consolidation operation by issuing notification dated 12th July, 1973 published in U.P. Gazette. In the basic year, land in dispute was jointly recorded in the name of the petitioners and their predecessors in interest. A small pedigree has been given in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is not in dispute. Sehati and Bandhoo Ss/o Neoor were two brothers. THE petitioners are from the branch of Sehati. Bandhoo had one son namely, Algoo, who was married with Aftee. Aftee had died in the year 1959 living behind, according to the petitioners, no male or female issue. THErefore, after death of Aftee the property in dispute came to be recorded' in the name of Sehati in pursuance of mutation order dated 15th December, 1959. THE names of the petitioners continued to be recorded in the revenue record since then and was so recorded in the basic year when the village was notified for consolidation operation. Smt. Gulabi, respondent No. 3 herein filed objection before the consolidation Court claiming herself daughter of Aftee and thus claimed co-tenancy over disputed khatas. THE petitioners contested the claim on the pleas inter alia that she is not daughter of Aftee but she is daughter of one Sita of village Bahorpur. She has been set up by Bhola and Basdev Singh who are enimical terms with the petitioners for a long time.
(2.) THE parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. Consolidation Officer by the order dated 18th October, 1975 rejected the objection filed by Smt. Gulabi. THE matter was carried in appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who allowed the appeal by the order dated 28th August, 1976. THE said order has been confirmed in further revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 1st October, 1981. Challenging the aforesaid two orders dated 28th August, 1976 and 1st October, 1981, the present writ petition has been filed. During pendency of the revision, the original record of the case was misplaced and it could not be traced out. Consequently, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ordered for reconstruction of the record. Record has been reconstructed and there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the correctness of the copies of the statement of Jhagroo, one filed by the petitioners and another filed by contesting respondent No. 3. However, this matter shall be dealt with at an appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no tangible evidence on record to show that. Smt. Gulabi is daughter of Aftee. He submits that con- i solidation Court wrongly placed the burden upon the petitioners to prove that Smt. Gulabi is not daughter of Aftee. The basic year entries were in favour of the petitioners, it was for Smt. Gulabi to prove her case by cogent and reliable evidence which she failed to do so. The mutation was ordered in favour of the petitioners after death of Aftee on 15th December, 1959 but no such objection, if any, at any stage was ever put forward by Smt. Gulabi. The relationship of Smt. Gulabi with Aftee could be established within the parameters of Section 50 of the Evidence Act and not otherwise. The Courts below have committed illegality on placing reliance upon non admissible evidence ignoring the material facts of the case. In short, there is no tangible evidence to establish that Smt. Gulabi is daughter of Aftee. Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, contended that in view of judgment of this Court in Bhurey v. Pir Bux and others, 1973 ALJ 312, any consent or admission made in mutation proceedings has no relevance in regular title proceedings. It was further contended that mutation proceedings are summary proceedings and regular proceedings thus are not barred by res judicata. Reference was made to certain decisions such as Inder Singh and another v. The financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, JT 1996 (10) SC 374 and Narain Singh and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Meerut and others, 1999 (90) RD 416. Certain decisions were relied upon for the proposition that a writ Court cannot be converted into a Court of appeal. It is directed not against decision but is confined to examination of decision making process. A writ Court cannot examine the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. A writ Court can only examine whether the decision making process adopted by the Courts below is correct or not, submits the learned counsel for the contesting respondent, Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) THE basic question mooted in the present writ petition is whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court and the Revisional Court holding that Smt. Gulabi is daughter of Smt. Aftee is based on relevant and admissible evidence on record or not. Whether the Courts below have rightly placed the burden of proof on the petitioners, is the another question which is interwoven and connected with the main question. The Court is conscious of the fact that a writ Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by a Court, Tribunal or Authority below to it. This proposition of law is firmly established. At the same time, a writ Court is not precluded in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to find out as to whether the finding of fact is based on legal evidence or not. It is not in dispute that after death of Aftee in the year 1959, the disputed property came to be recorded in the names of branch of the petitioners. The mutation proceeding was taken out and it was registered as Case No. 338 and by the order dated 15th December, 1959, the names of the petitioners' branch was entered in the revenue record. It is true that the said order is summary order but it is also true that since 1959 no step was taken to set at naught the order dated 15.12.1959. Since 1959, Smt. Gulabi has never asserted her co-tenancy right in the disputed khatas. For the first time, when the village was notified in the year 1973 for consolidation operation, she appeared on the scene and started claiming herself as daughter of Smt. Aftee. It is also not in dispute that in the basic year, the petitioners' branch was recorded as tenants in the revenue record over the disputed khatas. Law is well settled that a person who disputes correctness of the revenue entry recorded in the basic year has to prove that the entry is incorrect. To put it differently, the burden lay upon Smt. Gulabi to prove that she being daughter of Aftee, her name should be recorded. ;