Ajab Singh & Ors. v. Antram and Ors.
GANGUL Y, J.1. Leave granted.
D 2. This appeal arises out of a consolidation proceeding
under the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said
Act').
E 3. A revision application was filed under the provisions of
the said Act by the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before
the Deputy Director Consolidation, Agra as they were
aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer and the
order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy
Director reversed the findings of both the Consolidation Officer
F and those of Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
4. One of the grievances which has been raised by the
appellants herein is that the order of Consolidation Officer
dated 23.12.1981 and that of the Settlement Officer,
G Consolidation dated 29.11.1982, have been upset by the
Deputy i;:>irector, Consolidation while entertaining a revision
filed by the contesting respondents on 10.8.1993, which
according to the appellant, is barred by limitation. So the
complaint is that the order which has been passed by the
H Deputy Director Consolidation is bad in law and was passed
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R.
A Section 6 of the Limitation Act referred to above engrafts an
enabling provision to a minor to institute a proceeding by way
of filing a suit or by making an application after he ceases to
be a minor within the time prescribed to any other person who
is not a minor.
8 9. The decision of the Revisional Authority in entertaining
the revision at the instance of the contesting respondent Nos.1
and 2 therefore does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.
10. The other issues which have been found in favour of
C the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 are basically questions
of fact.
11. The appellants herein have not been able to prove that
they are in actual physical possession. Inasmuch as it has been
0 found that in the year 1377F, in 1379F in 804/3 no possession
is shown, in 1382F possession has been shown to be of one
year, in 1383F in one crop nothing has been sown. In 1384F
no one has been shown to be in possession, Khasra for 1386F
has not been filed and the Khasras from 1375F to 1385F have
E been filed, but there is no proof of continuous possession.
12. In the background of this factual position, the findings
of the lower authorities that the name of the appellants should
be recorded as Bhumidar is not factually correct. Thus a finding
which is based on the analysis of the factual aspect by the
F revisional authority is normally not upset by a superior Court
unless it is demonstrably shown to be perverse. In the case in
hand, no such case is made out.
13. The Deputy Director Consolidation has held that the
G appellants are not the actual cultivators and actual cultivator
cannot be deprived of his land on technical ground especially
when revisionists belong to a weak section of the community
as they belong to Scheduled Caste (Jatav). We also do not find
any error in the aforesaid findings arrived at by the revisional
H authority.
+·
·+
. ;,
AJAB SINGH & ORS. v. ANTRAM AND ORS. 841
[ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, J.]
14. It is a well settled legal position that unless finding of A
the revisional authority suffers from error of jurisdiction, the
Superior Court should not interfere.
15. The order of the High Court, therefore, has correctly
approved the order passed by the revisional authority. We see 8 no reason to take a different view.
16. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
D.G. Appeal dismissed. C