B.L.Yadav - (1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 9-9-92 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharthnagar, allowing the revision of Smt. Sirtaji, respondent no. 2 under section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act), and setting aside the order dated 7-10-91 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in Appeal No, 1208 and restoring the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 18-9-90, where as Revision No. 588 was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts of the case need not detain much. Khata No. 27 was recorded in the basic year in the name of Mahesh son of Changur and Smt. Shivraji, wife of Gurcharan. As Mst. Shivraji died the dispute arose as to who was her successor. Respondent no. 2 Smt. Sirtaji, wife of Gajraj, filed an objection in proceedings under section 12 of the Act, that she was the daughter of Gurcharan and Smt. Shivrajl, recorded tenure holder, hence she was entitled to be recorded in place of Smt. Shivrajl. Other objection was filed by Sunder, Dulare and Jang Bahadur that they were Shivrajl's husband's brother's son, and hence entitled to be recorded. But one Smt. Katwari, wife of Kesho, filed a time barred objection under section 12 of the Act claiming benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act and alleging that she was the daughter of Smt. Shivraji and that Smt. Sirtaji was not the daughter of Gurcharan and Shivraji, deceased. The objection of Smt Katwari was denied by respondent no. 2 Smt, Sirtaji alleging that she was not the daughter of Gurcharan and Smt. Shivraji, rather she was the daughter of one Autar and on account of enmity she has filed objection and there was no justification for condonation of delay, and the objection of Smt. Katwari was liable to be dismissed. The Consolidation Officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, by his order dated 18-9-90 (Annexure-4) allowed the objection of respondent no. 2 holding her to be the daughter of deceased and rejected other objections of the other objectors. Against that order, appeal by the petitioners was allowed by order dated 7 10-91 (Annexure-5) Against that order dated 7-10-91, revision was filed by respondent no 2 Smt. Sirtaji which was allowed by the impugned order dated 9-9-92.
(3.) SRI. O. P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous, Inasmuch as oral evidence as considered and relied upon by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, was not considered by the Dy. Director of Consolidation and that there was misreading In the statement of Vashishtha Singh, Pradhan. Consequently the findings are perverse Reliance was placed on Sultan Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Meerut, 1991 RD 455. Sri Siddhartha Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken into account all the relevant oral and documentary evidence and has also relied upon the statement of Vashishtha Singh, and that the findings as to whether Mst Shivraji was the daughter of the deceased, was the finding of fact which cannot de interfered with In the writ jurisdiction. The important documentary evidence was the birth certificate on 1922 of Smt. Sirtaji stating her age to be 46-47 years which corresponds to the date of birth when the statement was recorded and it was not proved by the petitioners that that date of birth relate to some other person, and the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable, inasmuch as in that case no oral evidence was considered at all, whereas in the present case oral evidence has been considered.;