S.R.Misra - (1.) THE only question which calls for determination in this case is whether there has been a forgery in the order dated 27-10-1972 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding three revisions.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that three revisions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 27-10-1972 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the matter relating to allotment of chak under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. One of the revisions was filed by the petitioner, namely, Raj Murat, second by Bhagwat Deen and Lal Chand and the third by Mata Prasad and others. According to the petitioner, all the three revisions, namely, Revisions No 3199/1106; 415/1142 and 461/1141 were allowed whereas the case of the contesting respondent is that they were dismissed. After a lapse of several years, the dispute arose whether the revisions, aforesaid, were allowed or dismissed and whether there has been tampering with the record of the revisions. An enquiry was got conducted in the matter. Statement of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was also recorded. On 30th June 1980, the Joint Director of Consolidation passed an order directing that Bhagwati Deen and Lal Chand be allowed to remain in possession as allotted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and, further, the file be transferred to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for further enquiry. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 5494 of 1980. THE aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 13-2-1981 and this Court directed the Joint Director of Consolidation to carry out the enquiry himself or to refer it to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, In the meantime, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for getting the report of the Hand Writing Expert for ascertaining the fact of forgery. The Hand Writing Expert submitted his report. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 also applied for a report of the Hand Writing Expert. The Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order dated 11-5-1982 recording a finding that all the three revisions, aforesaid, were dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the present writ petition has been filed. Sri R. S. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation suffers from apparent error calling for an interference by this Court as his order is based on misreading of record and can be termed as perverse. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following case laws :- 1. 1 Unreported Cases 615 (DB), 2. AIR 1972 Alld. 51. 3. AIR 1976 Alld. 91 (FB). 4. 1968 AWR 317. 5. 1981 ALJ 1079. 6. 1989 (4) SCC 612, etc. According to him material evidence on record has not been considered due to which the judgment of the court of fact is no judgment in the eye of law. For this contention, he placed reliance in 1991 AWC 720 He urged that if a finding has been recorded which cannot be recorded by any man of common prudent, the same has to be set aside and for this submission, be referred to decisions reported in AIR. 1980 SC 896 and AIR 1982 SC 84. He has further urged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed forgery by getting the word 'NIRASTHA' in place of 'SWIKRIT' in the judgment by using ink remover.
(3.) SRI V. D. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 contended that in the enquiry all relevant authorities, including the then Deputy Director of Consolidation, who had passed the order dated 27-10- 1972, were examined. After enquiry, the impugned order dated 11-5-1982 has been passed by the respondent no. 1 after considering each and every place of material document, including the misilband register etc. He urged that on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, it has been proved that in the earlier order dated 27-10-1972, there had been manipulation and fabrication in getting the revision allowed. Therefore, there does not arise any question of interference in the writ jurisdiction by this Court in the present writ petition. Having considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties the question arises for consideration of this Court is whether the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, by means of impugned order that forgery was committed in the original order dated 27-10-1972 after considering the material evidence interference is called for in writ jurisdiction against the finding of fact on the question whether forgery was committed or not. The rulings that are being cited on behalf of the petitioner and the error pointed out in the said judgment can only be looked into by a court first instance or the appellate court and the powers of this Court under Article 226 are limited. This court is very very reluctant in interfering in the findings of the fact specially when a finding arrived at by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the earlier judgment the word 'ALLOWED, is a part of forgery and originally in the said order the word written was 'DISMISSED'. While recording this finding the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the material evidence on the record. The case law cited by the counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is well settled that a finding of fact is not to be interfered, unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence to justify it or has resulted in manifest injustice. The dispute gives rise to the alleged forgery was pertaining to the allotment of chak proceedings under section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. While considering the case pertaining to a finding of fact and the powers of interference by the High Court under Article 226 was considered by a decision reported in 1987 SC 117, head note A which reads as under :- "It is well settled that the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an appropriate Court if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Courts below have come or in other words a finding which was perverse in law. This principle is well settled in D N. Banerji v, P. R Mukherjee, 1953 SCR 302 at p. 305 r (AIR '.953 SC 58 at p 59), it was laid down by this Court that unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention it was not for the High Court under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution to -Interfere.. If there is evidence on record on which a finding can be arrived at and if the Court has not misdirected itself either on law or on fact then in exercise of the power under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court should refrain from interfering with such findings made by the appropriate authorities." ;