- (1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioners assail the validity of the Revisional order, dated 19-7-1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (Respondent No. 1) in Revision No. 30/69 (copy appended as Annexure-3) remitting back Case No. 633/1212/542 to the Consolidation Officer, Civil Lines, Allahabad for taking the opinion of Government expert and also further evidence in regard to the question as to whether on the disputed gift deed there is signature of Tayeebun Nisa or some one else?
(2.) THE case of the petitioners that the deed in question was executed by one Tayeebun Nisa, which was disputed by respondents 2 and 3, who also adduced evidence including the opinion of the Handwriting Experts, was accepted by the first two consolidation authorities. THE submissions: The learned, counsel for the petitioners submitted as follows: "the order of remand is liable to be set aside as without recording any positive comment as to what was the difference between the reports of the two Handwriting Experts examined by the parties when there was a finding recorded by the Appellate Authority in paragraph 5 of its order that both experts had opined that there does not appear to be any difference in the thumb-impression on the disputed gift deed with that on the admitted sale deed, a trial de novo after taking opinion of the Government expert and further evidence is contrary to law and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 1994 RD 290, explaining scope of-Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. ". The learned counsel lor the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand, contended that valid reasons were assigned by the Revisional Authority for remitting back the case to the original authority and no interference is required by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. My findings:
(3.) THE extent and scope of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the "act was explained by the Supreme Court in Ram Dular (supra) as follows: ". . . . . . . . It is clear that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact finding authority by appreciating for itself of those fact de novo. It has to consider whether the legally admissible had not been considered by the authorities in a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by it is based on no evidence or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding. " Apparently the scope of the jurisdiction, explained as above, was exceeded by the Respondent No. 1 Without pointing out the difference between the opinion of the two handwriting reports and the evidence adduced by the parties the Revisional Authority committed a jurisdictional error in remitting back the case for a trial de noyo after taking the opinion of a third expert.;