Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order dated April 20, 1976 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1 herein. THE dispute relates to Khata Khatauni Nos. 46, 47 and 79 situate in village Chakhaniya, Pergana Narwan, District-Varanasi. Khata Nos. 46 and 47 were recorded in the basic year as Bhumidhar of Shyam Behari, respondent No. 5 (contesting respondent). While Shyam Behari was recorded as Sirdar with respect to Khata No. 79. THE petitioner preferred an objection before the Consolidation Authorities during the consolidation operation for recording her name in the Revenue records as co-tenure holder along with Shyam Behari. THE objections were filed on the pleas inter alia that Namwar Singh, Raja Singh and Nawab Singh, three brothers, sons of Shiv Saran Singh, were tenure holders of the land in dispute. Namwar Singh died about 60 years ago and his share was inherited in absence of any other heir by his remaining brothers Raja Singh and Nawab Singh. Subsequently, Raja Singh also died and thus, Nawab Singh succeeded to the entire property. THE petitioner claimed that she is daughter of Nawab Singh and thus, inherited the property in question in the year 1963 when Nawab Singh expired and thus, she claimed that her name may be recorded as co-tenure holder along with the contesting respondent, Shyam Behari.
(2.) AT the initial stage, the contesting respondent preferred not to file any reply to the objection of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer framed issues on the basis of petitioner's objection. The petitioner in support of her case filed a copy of her birth register dated 15.8.1908 showing herself daughter of Nawab Singh. She besides aforestated documentary evidence got examined herself and her witnesses. Thereafter, an objection by the contesting respondent was filed, after the close of the petitioner's evidence wherein he did not dispute the fact that the property in dispute is ancestral property. He came out with the case that the petitioner is not daughter of Nawab Singh but is daughter of Namwar Singh (brother of Nawab Singh). He also produced evidence in support of his case. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated February 6, 1974 rejected the objections filed by the petitioner and ordered continuance of the basic year entries in the records. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal No. 182 successfully before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Varanasi, who recorded a finding after taking into consideration the material on record that on the basis of the birth register of the year 1908, it is established that the petitioner is the daughter of Nawab Singh and not of Namwar Singh. The said judgment and order is dated 6th of January, 1975. Thereafter, both the parties preferred revisions being revision No. 7065 preferred by Shyam Behari (contesting respondent) and revision No. 7066 preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred the revision as her share was not specified by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the order under revision. She claimed that her share in the land in dispute is 3/4th. Both these revisions were heard together and have been disposed off by common order impugned in the present writ petition. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising the revisional jurisdiction conferred on it under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act allowed the revision of contesting respondent and restored the order of Consolidation Officer. It consequently dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. The main thrust of the argument of Shri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded in its jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact as recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He submits that in view of plain language of Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act as it existed then, it was impermissible for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to reverse the findings of fact as recorded by the authority below to it unless the said finding is perverse or is not based on material on record. It was also submitted that the entry made in the birth register should have been taken as correct and could not be disputed at this distance of time. The contesting respondent threatened the Deputy Director of Consolidation by filing successive transfer applications against him on unfounded allegations, which all were dismissed in due course of time, submits learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the filing of transfer applications one after the other, prejudiced the mind of Deputy Director of Consolidation against the petitioner and the impugned order is outcome of the said prejudice. Shri R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri A.K. Rai and Shri Vishnu Kumar Singh, advocates, on the other hand, submits that the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well have recorded categorical finding of fact that the petitioner has failed to prove that she is daughter of Nawab Singh. The said finding is essentially a finding of fact. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has placed reliance upon the documentary evidence as well and has rightly accepted the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the contesting respondent, as trustworthy while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. Appreciation of evidence on a question which is purely one of the fact, cannot be done by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, submits the learned senior counsel.
(3.) CONSIDERED the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The basic question which falls for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner who died during the pendency of the writ petition, was the daughter of Nawab Singh as pleaded by her or was of Namwar Singh as pleaded by the contesting respondent (Shyam Behari) and also scope of interference in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The following pedigree has been given by the petitioner: Bishan Dayal Shiv saran Dwarika = Smt. Mahesha Nepal = Smt. Morochhi Shishu Singh Namwar Raja Nawab (Daughter) Smt. Mahraji (Petitioner) w/o Laxman Singh Dal Ganja Sarju Shyam Behari R.No. 5 Ram Roop;