- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri Tribeni Shanker, and Sri Tripathi B. G. Bhai, learned advocate in support of this petition and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned advocate who appeared for the respondent.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the appellate authority which have been, passed in proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of UPCH Act. As the facts are very small and therefore, on brief notice, this petition can be conveniently disposed off. In the basic year record, name of petitioners' side was recorded. Objection was filed by respondent claiming her right that she is the widow of Thakur which was denied by the petitioner and it was submitted that Thakur was unmarried and he died as such. Petitioner in support of his case examined Teemal, Ram Ajor and Sumiran. The opposite party in support of her case examined herself, Bechan and Mohan. Besides, adducing oral evidence, petitioner filed copy of revenue extract and Kutumb Register of 1960 of village Khurpahwa and another kutumb register of village Semrabankasiya. The opposite party in support of her case filed copy of Pariwar Register which was prepared under the orders of Assistant Development Officer in the year 1984. She also filed copy of voter list of 1970-73. Any other evidence, if it has been filed that may be seen from the record. The Consolidation Officer on consideration of entire evidence agreed to the petitioner's submission" and thus rejected the claim/objection of opposite party against which, opposite party preferred appeal, which was allowed, upon which the petitioners came to revisional Court but could not succeed and thus, these two orders are under challenge before this Court.
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for petitioner is that the judgment of appellate authority being of reversal is liable to be set aside on account of non consideration of oral evidence which was adduced from both sides and also the documentary evidence as has been referred and discussed by the Consolidation Officer. SUBMISSION is that the judgment of two authorities are totally perverse and in fact, they are vitiated on account of non consideration of vital evidence. In response to the aforesaid, Sri Kumar, learned Counsel submits that although in the judgment of appellate authority and revisional authority, oral evidence has not been specifically referred and discussed as considered by the Consolidation Officer but, on these facts judgment cannot be said to be faulty and no exception can be taken as the question involved is pure question of fact. This Court need not to interfere in writ jurisdiction.;