- (1.) Heard Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition was earlier decided by this Court vide judgment dated 15.09.2003. The writ petition was allowed, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (the DDC) was set aside and the basic year entry was maintained. Against this order, the respondents approached the Apex Court by means of Civil Appeal No. 7491 of 2004/ (SLP) (C ) No. 3024 of 2004. The Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter back for consideration of the case a fresh in accordance with law. This is how the matter has come up for hearing.
(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the dispute in the instant writ petition pertains to khata no. 104 of village Sathar, Pargana Mah, District Allahabad. In the basic year, this land was recorded in the name of the petitioner. The contesting respondents filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, claiming co-tenancy, on the ground that it has jointly acquired by the petitioner and the contesting respondent by means of a patta executed by the erst-while zamindar. The objection was initially allowed by the Consolidation Officer (the CO) and the respondents were held to be to-tenants. This order was affirmed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (the SOC). These two orders were subsequently set aside by the DDC and the matter was remanded back with the direction that the zamindar be examined to ascertain as to whether there was a settlement by him in favour of the parties. The second direction contained in the order of remand was that the Goswara entries be examined because it was the case of the objectors that the mutation proceedings had been decided whereby the parties came to be recorded over the land in question in 1354 fasli on the basis of the alleged settlement in their favour.
(3.) On remand the CO dismissed the objection which order was affirmed in appeal. The revision filed by the objectors was allowed holding them to be co-tenants. Against this order, the instant writ petition was preferred. This Court by the order dated 15.09.2003 set aside the revisional order on the ground that the DDC had no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three courts below, relying upon the judgments in the case Ram Dular vs. DDC, 1994 RevDec 290 & Gayadin vs. Raghunath Prasad,2003 RevDec 181 wherein it was held that the DDC i.e. revisional court has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. The order of High Court has been set aside by the Supreme Court on the reasoning that even the revisional court can interfere with the findings of fact, if such findings are perverse and are not supported by the evidence on record; or such findings are against the law or suffer from procedural irregularity. From a perusal of the order of the Apex Court it cannot be said that the reasoning given by the High Court in its judgement that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the sub-ordinate Consolidation Authorities cannot be interfered with in revision has not been reversed. On the contrary, this reasoning has been affirmed. The Apex Court has however set aside this order and remanded the matter back only on the ground that despite the DDC being a court of limited jurisdiction, it can, in certain circumstances enumerated in the order itself, interfere with findings of fact also. It, therefore, in my considered opinion, follows that this Court is only required to consider as to whether the circumstances, in view whereof, a finding of fact can be interfered with by the DDC, exist in the instant case or not.;