- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20. 12. 72 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (D. D. C.), Ballia, respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple. In the basic year, Jeetan, the father of the petitioners was recorded. Even in some earlier records, his name finds place. But in a proceeding for correction of records, Jeetan admitted on 1. 7. 63 that he had no concern with the disputed property. On the basis of this admis sion, learned S. D. O. passed an order for correction of records and the names of respondents were recorded. However, when the consolidation proceedings started, the names of the petitioners also crept in. The matter was agitated before the consolidation courts. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation (S. O. C.) by his order dated 15. 6. 71 did not accede to the request of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed Revision No. 15046 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was heard and decided by the learned D. D. C. on 20. 12. 72. It is relevant to note that although the admission dated 1. 7. 63 was con sidered by the S. O. C. as well as the D. D. C, but no effect was made to explain it away. In Narain v. Gopal AIR 1960 S. C. 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the admission is the best on evidence which the opposite party can adduce, it is conclusive of the matter and virtually decisive unless explained away.
(3.) IN this case strangely enough, neither before the S. O. C. nor before the D. D. C. , this admission of Jeetan was sought to be explained. Motilal respondent No. 2 appeared in the witness box. But he did not say anything as to how the ad mission of his father came into being in respect of the disputed property. Under these circumstances, the learned D. D. C. was justified in relying upon the admis sion of Jeetan dated 1. 7. 63, whereby he clearly surrendered his interest, if at all, in respect of the disputed property and admitted the case of the respondents. So this is a conclusion based on evidence available on record. Other objection was that the revision was time barred, the order of the S. O. C. is dated 15. 6. 71. An application for copy was made by the revisionist on 25. 6. 71. It appears that due to some technical error for want of steps, his applica tion was rejected. But later on, it was restored on 23. 11. 71. So the date of the ap plication is 25. 6. 71/23. 11. 71. Hence it is very much within time. Copy was received on 3. 1. 72 and the revision was filed on 10. 1. 72. So it was very much within limitation.;