S.P.Srivastava - (1.) AN objection filed by the opposite party second set in the proceedings under section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act wherein they had challenged the basic year entry in respect of the holding in dispute standing in favour of the present petitioner was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 16-11-84 which order was challenged in appeal. The objector opposite party second set had challenged the basic year entry Indicated above claiming co-tenancy rights therein. The petitioner had objected to their claim and in support of his case about the sole tenancy in respect of the holding in dispute sought to rely upon an admission of the objectors in the proceedings before the Assistant Record Officer Gorakhpur giving rise to Misc. case no. 181/1940 decided on 9-1-73 wherein the objectors were alleged to have admitted the petitioner to be the sole tenant of the holding in question on the basis of a private partition which was duly given effect to in the revenue records. It appears that the objectors denied to have made any admission as claimed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, it appears, during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal an application was filed by the petitioner on 3-4-91 praying that the record of Misc. case no 181/40 (correction of land record) Sheo Pujan v. Ganpat decided on 9-1-73 be summoned from the reveaue record room and if found necessary the opinion of any expert be also obtained to find oat the truth. This application was objected by the opposite party second set and was rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur, the appellate authority vide the order dated 23-9-91 on the ground of delay. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision under section 48 of the U P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was disposed of by the respondent no. 1 vide the order dated 19-2-92 and observing that the disputed admission was in the nature of an evidence and its effect on merits could be considered by the appellate authority at the time of the disposal of the appeal the case was remanded to the appellate authority with the direction that the appeal be heard after affording full opportunity to the parties and in case the parties filed on record additional evidence that may also be accepted and further that the appeal be disposed of within three months, on merits. The respondent no, 1 while passing the aforesaid order, however, made it clear that in the proceedings contemplated under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act there could be no justification for entertaining expert evidence, The result of the aforesaid observation was that even though the Settlement Officer Consolidation could not refuse to entertain additional evidence on the ground of delay yet the said authority could not permit bringing on record the expert evidence to establish the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the admissions of the opposite party second set which according to him conclusively established his case.
(2.) ON 31-7-1992, when the case was heard, Sri P. K. Misra, learned counsel representing the contesting opposite party second set stated that no counter affidavit was proposed to be filed on their behalf. I have heard Sri H. S. N Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P. K. Misra, learned counsel representing opposite party second set. The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that even though the revisional authority, respondent no. 1 has permitted the bringing on record of the additional evidence yet in view oil the observation made by him to the effect that there can be no justification for permitting expert evidence to be brought on record in the proceedings under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced. It has been asserted that the aforesaid observation made by the respondent no. 1 in the impugned order proceeds on a manifestly erroneous assumption which is not at all warranted by tie provisions contained in the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It has been further asserted that as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100, an admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the: matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. It has further been asserted that in the circumstances of the case, the respondent no. 1 has acted with manifest illegality in shutting out the petitioner from bringing on record expert evidence which according to him in the circumstances of the case could have conclusively established the falsity of the objections raised by the contesting opposite party second set.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the other hand has urged that the appellate authority had refused to admit additional evidence on record on the ground that the prayer had been made at a very belated stage and the whole attempt appeared to be a malafide one with an intention to delay the disposal of the appeal. It has been asserted that in the circumstances of the case, therefore, no ground at all had been made out for permitting the petitioner to lead additional evidence and no interference is called for in the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent no. 1 had not approved of the order passed by the appellate authority where under he had refused to consider the application for bringing on record additional evidence simply on the ground of its being belated. This fact is clear from the direction contained in the remand order where under the appellate authority has been directed to accept the additional evidence led by the parties and decide the appeal on merits after taking them into consideration. The contesting respondents have not challenged the direction contained in the impugned order and the said order has since attained finality. The only question, therefore, which remains for consideration is as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent no. 1 was justified in holding that in the proceedings under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act there could be so justification for permitting expert evidence to be brought on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the above question.;