B. Dikshit, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of two objections, one being filed by petitioners Rajendra Prasad. Chunkawan and Shyam Lal while other by Ganga and Malku son of Bodhi, Rajju son of Sheodarshan. In both the objections, it was prayed that the name of respondent No. 2 Rant is farzi and. therefore, her name be deleted. The objections were contested by Smt. Rani. She claimed that she being daughter of Ram Gopal, the husband of last tenure -holder, her name is rightly recorded over disputed Khata. The petitioners disputed Smt. Rani's parentage also. They claimed that Smt. Rani is not daughter of Ram Gopal. As Consolidation Authorities finally held Smt. Rani to be daughter of Ram Gopal, the pedigree on the basis of which this petition has been contested stands settled as follows : style="font -family: Verdana; font -size: 11px" Tulsi | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | Shiv Darshan Bodhi Chittu | | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | | | Ram Gopal Rajju Motilal Kallu | | | Mst.Vadi (widow) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | | | Smt. Rani Rajendra | Shyam Lal | (daughter) Prasad | | | | Chunkawan | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | Jagdeo Ganga Laxmi Malku | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | Raja Bhaiya Rabadin | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | Sohan Santsaran Prahladt Gajju
(2.) THE main dispute between parties in this petition is as to whether Ram Gopal pre -deceased Chittu? There is no dispute between parties that Smt. Vadi was last tenure -holder on whose death succession opened under Section 172 read with Section 171 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short 'Act'). According to petitioners, Ram Gopal pre -deceased Chittu and. therefore, on death of Smt. Vadi, the succession has to be determined through last male tenure -holder Chittu while Smt, Rani claimed that Chittu predeceased his son Ram Gopal and. therefore, on death of Smt. Vadi. she (Smt. Rani) succeeded as Ram Gopal's daughter. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 14.3.81 allowed petitioners' objection and directed expunction of name of Smt. Rani. Dissatisfied with the order of Consolidation Officer. Smt. Rani preferred appeal. The appeal was allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Ban da by order dated 24.8.82, who upheld the claim of Smt. Rani and ordered that name of Smt. Rani recorded in basic year of consolidation operation shall continue. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision. A compromise was filed in revision according to which Smt. Rani was not to get any share. Smt. Rani disputed that compromise and claimed that she did not enter into it. The revisional authority did not determine the dispute about entering of parties into compromise but by order dated 20.4.87 set aside the order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation and remanded the case for determining validity of compromise and to what extent it will affect the share of parties. The revisional authority directed for decision afresh by Settlement Officer, Consolidation keeping in view the effect of said compromise. The Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation, Banda, re -examined the matter in compliance of remand order. It held the compromise to be invalid. He recorded finding of fact that as Ram Gopal pre -deceased Chittu and, therefore, the succession on death of Smt. Vadi is to be determined through Chittu, who was last male tenure -holder. Smt. Rani preferred a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. As the succession to Smt. Vadi was dependent on answer to the question if Ram Gopal predeceased Chittu or he died after Chittu, the petitioners led additional evidence at revisional stage. They filed certified copies of Khatauni of the year 1382F and 1363 to 1365F on 19.4,97. As additional evidence was led In revision, the revisional authority provided an opportunity of rebuttal to Smt. Rani Devi also. Smt. Rani Devi in rebuttal filed a copy of order of Tehsildar of the year 1957 passed in mutation which was numbered as a Case No. 1386, and a copy of the statement of village Lekhpal, which he made in that case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda. after taking into consideration additional evidence led by parties and holding that on death of Chittu, Ram Gopal succeeded and, therefore, the succession is to be determined from Ram Gopal, allowed the revision by order dated 30.4.1997.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner argued that Chittu pre -deceased Ram Gopal and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of revisional power could not have interfered in finding of fact recorded by authorities subordinate to him. He contended that if the Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the opinion that findings of fact are to be recorded afresh in view of additional evidence led before him, then the only course open to him was to remand the matter to Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation to reconsider the case of parties in the light of additional evidence held in the case. He contended that the Supreme Court of India has led in the case of Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others., 1994 Su 2 SCC 198, that a Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 does not have power to record finding of fact after re -appreciating the evidence.;