- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision filed by the petitioner under Section 48 of the U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act whereunder set ting aside the order of remand passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner the revising authority had itself considered the evidence in the materials on the record and restored the order passed by the Consolidation Of ficer rejecting the objections of the petitioner claiming to be the only successor-m-interest of Nandrani, the deceased tenure-holder in respect of her Bhumidhari rights in the land in dispute and had upheld the objection of Smt. Shiv Pyari in this con nection and ordered for the recording of her name as the heir of deceased tenure-holder, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the im pugned order.
(2.) I have heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, and Sri H. S. Nigam learned counsel representing the contesting respondent. The facts shorn details and necessary for the disposal of the case lie in a narrow compass. In the basic year the land in dispute stood recorded in the name of Smt. Shiv Pyari and Smt. Nandrani showing them to be the Bhumidhars thereof. During the consolidation Partal, Smt. Nandrani was found to be dead. Two objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer claiming to be the heir and legal representative of deceased Smt. Nandrani. One objection was filed by Smt. Shiv Pyari claiming to be the daughter of the brother of the husband of deceased Nandrani. She also claimed that Smt. Nandrani had executed a will in her favour on 23-6-83. Second objection was filed by the petitioner claiming to be the successor-in-interest of Smt. Nandrani on the strength of the will said to have been executed by her in his favour on 29-6-83. A perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer indicates that although Smt. Shiv Pyari had also put forward a claim on the basis of the "will" but that had not been pressed by her and even the "will" relied upon by her had not been produced. The Consolidation Officer, therefore, con sidered the claim in regard to the her being successor of deceased Smt. Nandrani on the basis of her being a co-tenure holder and entitled to the benefits of Section 175 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The will set up by the petitioner in support of his claim was found to be fictitious and unreliable. His objection was, therefore, rejected. On an appeal filed by the petitioner the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) without going into the merits remanded the case for being decided on merits afresh with the direction that the case relating to village Abhaipur and village Ashiqpur in regard to the question of succession of Smt. Nandrani who had her holdings in both the villages and similar objections had been filed be consolidated.
(3.) THE Deputy Director of Consolida tion in the impugned order has observed that since the holdings situate in the two different villages were different it was not necessary that the objection in regard to the revenue entries in the record of rights relat ing to the holding situate in the two villages be heard together as the consolidation proceedings in both the villages were at dif ferent stages and, therefore, both the cases could be heard independently. THE revising authority however, further observed that the conclusions reached by the Consolida tion Officer in respect of the will, set up by the petitioner were correct and endorsed the finding of the consolidation officer holding the said will to be farzi and unreli able. In the aforesaid view of the matter holding Smt. Shiv Pyari to be entitled to the benefit of Section 175 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act she was found to be the successor-in- interest of Smt. Nandrani and the order of the Consolida tion Officer was restored. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the appellate authority in the present case had not gone into the merits of the evidence and had remanded the case for being decided afresh consolidating the cases of both the villages. In the circumstances the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could not assume the role of the appellate authority and appraise the evidence on record in order to arrive at a finding on a question of fact. It has further been urged mat a perusal of the impugned order passed by the revising authority does not indicate that he has even reappraised the evidence as it has been simply observed that the revising authority agreed with the conclusions reached by the Consolidation Officer which were correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that this cannot be taken to be an appraisal of evidence as re quired to be done by the appellate authority. The contention is that the revising authority has in fact exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him while passing the impugned order.;