- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and 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 3-9-1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of his powers under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short "the Act". The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in the basic year the name of the petitioner's father, Mohan Singh, was recorded in the revenue papers. Respondent No. 2, Hublal, filed an objection that he had purchased the land in dispute from Karan Singh and Ram Swarup, sons of Mohan Singh through the sale deed dated 3-12-1974, therefore, his name was liable to be entered in the revenue papers after expunging the names of Karan Singh and Ram Swarup whose name were mutated after the death of Mohan Singh. The objection filed by Respondent No. 2 was objected to and opposed by the petitioner who had pleaded that the sale deed was never executed by him in favour of Hublal nor any sale consideration was paid to him. The parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer after considering the evidence on record held that the execution of the sale deed was not proved and dismissed the objection filed by Hublal by this judgment and order dated 20-10-1983. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which also met the same fate and was dismissed by his judgment and order dated 26-12-1983. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 preferred a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed the findings recorded by the authorities below and allowed the revision by his judgment and order dated 3-9-1985, hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to reverse the findings recorded by the authorities below and to substitute his own findings for the findings recorded by them. He could at the best remand the case if he was of the opinion that the findings recorded by the authorities below were erroneous or perverse and that the judgments and orders passed by them were not in accordance with law. It was also urged that the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation were all findings of fact which were based on relevant evidence on record. They did not suffer from any error of law. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has noticed wrong facts in his order and came to the wrong conclusion, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was urged that the passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is concluded by findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on record. The same, therefore, cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also urged that after the amendment of Section 48 of the Act, vide U. P. Ordinance No. 12 of 2002, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had jurisdiction to reverse the findings recorded by the authorities below and to record his own findings after the reappraisal of the evidence on record, therefore, the writ petition had no force and was liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.;