JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. These are two connected writ petitions which arise out of the one and the same judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Jaunpur dated 12.5.83 by which revision filed by Ram Nath and others was partly allowed.
2. One writ petition has been filed by Ram Nath and others i.e. writ petition No. 9038 of 1993 and another writ petition has been filed by Shiv Ram i.e. writ petition No. 8703 of 1983. For convenience writ petition No. 9038 of 1983 filed by Ram Nath and others is being taken up as leading case and the judgment rendered will govern both the cases.
3. As facts of both writ petitions are interconnected and they are one and the same, their summary us noted below will suffice.
4. Proceedings are under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is in respect to adjudication of title between the parties. Mentioning of the details of writ petition of Ram Nath i.e. writ petition No. 9038 of 1983 will be sufficient for disposal of both cases. The dispute related to the land comprised in Khata No. 80, 82,86,225, 190 and 192 situated in village Sandikalan, Tahsil Machhlishahr district Jaunpur. In the basic consolidation record name of petitioner was entered as tenure holder of Khata No. 80, 82, 86 and 225 and the name of petitioner as well as Mahabir, Mahadeo, Jhirang and Ram Pher was recorded in Khata No. 190 and 192. An objection was filed by Shiv Ram ( respondent No. 4) hereinafter referred to as the respondent giving a pedigree and claiming that he is son of Bisheshar who was son of Pandohi and thus he claimed to be cotenant of Khata No. 80/82, 86 and 225. It is said that a compromise was filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on which no notice was issued to the petitioner and on the basis of the alleged compromise respondents have been accepted to be cotenant in the land of the aforesaid Khatas. It is said that on the basis of some non existent fact and alleged compromise which was in relation to four Khatas only the Assistant Consolidation Officer directed names of the respondents to be entered along with petitioner in Khata No. 190 and 192 also. Against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer by which respondent was also allowed 7/18 share on account of compromise in Khata No. 80, 82, 86 and 225 appeals were filed claiming 1/2 share in the land. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 23.12.74 held that compromise and the order as passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer is not valid and doubting on reconciliation, appeals were allowed and matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision on the merits. It is said that petitioners on coming to know about the acceptance of the claim of the opposite parties in respect to Khata No. 190 and 192 also filed their own appeal in which it was pointed out that there was no compromise in respect to any Khata. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation has allowed that appeal also and set aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect to Khata No. 190 and 192 and remanded the case for trial on merits before the Consolidation Officer and thus claim of the parties in respect to all the six Khatas was to be tried by the Consolidation Officer on merits in the light of the evidence which had to come. On start of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer petitioners filed objection on the ground that Shiv Ram has no concern with the petitioners or the land in dispute. It was claimed that pedigree given by the opposite party claiming himself to be grand son of Pandohi is wrong as Bisheshar is not son of Pandohi. Consolidation Officer by judgment dated 26.4.78 accepted respondent to be cotenant along with petitioners in the Khatas in dispute. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority by judgment dated 28.11.82. Revision filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by judgment dated 12.5.83. Revision was dismissed in respect to Khata No. 80, 86, 190 and 192 but was allowed in respect to the land of Khata No. 82 and 225. Thus, in two Khatas i.e. Khata No. 82 and 225 petitioners were accepted to be sole owner and in respect to remaining Khatas both the parties were accepted to be cotenant. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation writ petition was filed by Ram Nath in respect to remaining four Khatas i.e. Khata No. 80, 86, 190 and 192 and writ petition was filed by Shiv Ram in respect to two Khatas i.e. Khata No. 82 and 225. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the claim of the parties is to be examined.
5. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R. S. Maurya, learned Advocate in writ petition filed by Ram Nath and Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned Advocate in writ petition filed by Shiv Ram have been heard in support of writ petitions and accordingly they have been heard in opposition thereof to each other.
6. Sri Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate in support of his writ petition submits that the claim of the respondents of being cotenant. being grand son of Pandohi was based on three documentary evidence besides oral evidence. Although two courts below have accepted claim of the opposite party based on documentary evidence but the Deputy Director of Consolidation by assigning reasons discarded all the three documentary evidence on the ground that they are forged but at the same time without analyzing oral evidence in accordance with law the findings in favour of the opposite party has been returned on totally extraneous grounds and thus finding is vitiated. It is submitted that oral evidence of the petitioner has been discarded on absolutely wrong premises and by placing wrong burden of proof on petitioners in respect to the matter in issue. Submission is that consideration which prevailed in the mind of the Deputy Director of Consolidation for accepting Shiv Ram to be grand son of Pandohi appears to be that against compromise/reconciliation which was arrived at before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, petitioners have not filed appeal and they have not challenged and therefore, their claim that Shiv Ram is not grand son of Pandohi is not to be accepted is totally erroneous, as the alleged reconciliation has already been set aside by the appellate authority on the finding that it was a forged affair. It is further submitted that pedigree has not been proved by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of Section 32(5) and 50 of the Evidence Act and thus on the facts, findings in this respect can not be said to be based on any legal evidence. Submission is that Deputy Director of Consolidation being last court of fact having disagreed with the reasonings given by the two courts below in respect to documentary evidence and there being absolutely no analysis in respect to oral evidence in accordance with law, finding recorded by him cannot be said to be finding in eye of law and thus matter needs remand to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision. In support of the submission that if the finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is vitiated in law this court can interfere, reliance has been placed on the decision given in case of Achutanand Baidya v. Profullya Kumar Gayen and Ors. reported in 1997(5) SCC, page 76. In support of the submission that statement has to be read as a whole reliance has been placed on the decision given in case of Haji CH. Mohammad Koya v. T.K.S.M.A. Muthu Koya, reported in 1979(2) SCC, page 8.
7. In response to the aforesaid Sri R.N. Singh, learned Advocate submits that question in issue that whether Shiv Ram is grand son of Pandohi being question of fact as the finding in this respect has been returned by all the three courts which cannot be said to be based on no evidence, no interference in the writ jurisdiction is to be made. It is further submitted that documents which have been accepted to be genuine by two courts have been wrongly discarded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for no lawful justification and therefore findings of two courts in that respect are to prevail. Apart from that Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered oral evidence besides other situation of non challenge of the order of Assistant consolidation Officer by the petitioner and setting up the will in respect to the property in dispute from Pandohi, which has been not accepted. The claim of the petitioner can not be accepted. Submission is that if all the three courts have concurred about the rights of the opposite party, no exception can be taken to it. It is submitted that petitioners in para 5 of the writ petition has said that all the land in question is of the time Pandohi and therefore, on acceptance of the claim of the respondents that he is grand son of Pandohi in all the Khatas his claim of co tenancy is to be accepted and thus part of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is against the respondents is to be set aside/modified. Submission is that unless it is established that judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation is perverse, the finding of fact cannot be interfered by this court. In support of the submission that scope of interference by the revisional court is limited, reliance has been placed on the decision reported in 2003 RD, page 282. In support of the submission that even if the compromise has been set aside by the court, the compromise remains binding, reliance has been placed on the decision given in case of Lal Ji Singh and Ors. v. Shiva Pujan Singh and Ors. reported in 1982 ALJ, page 198. In support of the submission that if some evidence recorded by the courts below is extraneous, if it is found that judgment is based on legal evidence interference is not to be made, reliance has been placed on the decision given in cases reported in AIR 1971 SC, page 1537, AIR 1977 SC, page 915, AIR 1997 SC, page 3467, 2003 SC page 1754 and AIR 1954 SC page, 601.
8. In view of the aforesaid the court has examined the matter.
9. So far submission in respect to the scope of interference in the writ jurisdiction is concerned there may not be any quarrel in respect to submission of both of the parties. It is not to be repeated that finding or question of fact is binding on this court and it cannot be interfered unless this court is of the view that finding of fact recorded by the court below is perverse or is based on extraneous consideration or is vitiated in law. Although the scope of interference in respect to question of fact is limited but at the same time it cannot be said that this court is not entitled to look into the correctness of the findings so as to satisfy himself about its propriety. Examination about sufficiency of evidence in respect to finding and examination in respect to the fact that whether the evidence has been validly analysed and there is any procedural error in recording of the finding are two different things. Of course testing of the finding of fact on the first ground may not be permitted but on second ground it may be. Keeping in mind the aforesaid consideration this court is to read the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
10. To begin with the consideration the documentary evidence which was filed by the respondent Shiv Ram is to be taken note of first. There is Khasra extract of 1334 Fasli, Khasra of 1305 Fasli and copy of the statement of Matai which is said to have been recorded in case No. 99 before the Sub. Divisional Officer on 11.7.1925 in case of Jai Karan v. Jagannath Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation believed aforesaid document. Deputy Director of Consolidation by assigning reasons have disbelieved them. The question is that, whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation has discarded those documents by assigning valid reasons and the considerations which prevailed can be said to be in accordance with law or not. Deputy Director of Consolidation while discarding Khasra extract 1334 Fasli has taken note of the fact that in Khasra 1334 Fasli with the name of Matai the predecessor of the petitioner there is mention of Shiv Ram (respondent) as Marfat for which there is no such rule. Deputy Director of Consolidation has further mentioned that the entry in the name of Shiv Ram as Marfat is also in the different ink and as there is no such provision of making such entry under the Land Record Manual that appears to be manufactured. Sri Singh in this respect pointed out that in the past it might be a precedent or some custom to make entry as Marfat and therefore on this ground that entry cannot be doubted. So far this aspect is concerned two courts have not accepted the genuineness of the entry by giving aforesaid reasons and otherwise if there is provision in the Land Record Manual to make entry in a particular manner, if revisional court has disbelieved that extract it cannot be said that consideration in this respect is perverse or erroneous. It was for the respondent to prove instances or precedence or the circumstance in which that entry was made which was not otherwise provided under Rule/Manual. So far, entry of Khasra 1305 Fasli is concerned Deputy Director of Consolidation has given reason that Khatauni of 1305 Fasli was not available in the record room and the document field by the opposite party was issued in the year 1916 and there is no explanation that why copy of that document was got issued in 1916 and was preserved upto this time. In respect to the statement of Matai which is said to have been recorded in case No. 99 it has been pointed out that statement is not in any case between the parties and it is not clear that under what circumstance that statement was given. Copy of that statement was also got issued in 1928 and there is a difference in the ink also and therefore, it is not clear that why and under what circumstances the statement which was neither in respect to any case between the parties nor in respect to any property of the family was given and by taking the copy thereof in 1928 that was preserved till date. The aforesaid consideration prima facie cannot be said to be a perverse consideration. The revisional court cannot be said to be exercising the power just like writ court in which it cannot be said that even if two views are possible he is not to substitute the other view contrary to the view taken by the court below. So far the Deputy Director of Consolidation is concerned even if for the sake of argument: it is accepted that he is possessed with limited powers but he has certainly the power to give its own findings by assigning reasons contrary to the findings given by the courts below. Thus on consideration of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while recording the findings in respect to the documentary evidence on the ground as mentioned in the judgment has committed any error. It may be another situation that the reasonings and approach of the two courts below have not been met and reversed by the revisional court while recording its own findings. If it is so it may be just for both side to argue before this court that examine the reasons given by all the three courts on question of fact and weigh the balance therein for finalizing one set of findings. For this both parties will have to enter into hot contest before the revisional court by referring to various facts, circumstances and the evidence in the light of reasonings given by the two courts below and also that by the revisional court in the impugned order.
11. Now the claim of the parties based on oral evidence as to be referred by this court. So far oral evidence as has been discussed by the revisional court is concerned, in relation to the petitioner's witnesses who are three in number. They have stated that Pandohi was not grand father of Shiv Ram but the same has been discarded only on the ground that petitioners have not been able to prove that if Shiv Ram is not from the family of Pandohi then of what family he is? The reason as given to discard the petitioner's witnesses on the aforesaid ground cannot be said to be proper. It cannot be said that to establish the fact that A is not son of B it is also required to prove that whose son is A. So far oral evidence from respondent side is concerned only one line has been said in the judgment that they have stated that Shiv Ram is grand son of Pandohi. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that, there is any analysis of the oral evidence. Needless to say that mere mention of name of the witnesses, cannot be said to be analysis in any manner unless they are believed or disbelieved by assigning any valid reason.
12. On a consideration of entire detail it is clear that the main consideration which prevailed with the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that petitioners have not challenged the reconciliation order and therefore, their contention against the claim of the respondent that Shiv Ram is not grand son of Pandohi is not to be accepted. In this respect it can be pointed out that according to the petitioners they were not aware about the alleged reconciliation and the order and it is only when opposite party filed appeal for enlargement of his share they came to know about alleged reconciliation/order and on coming to know they have filed appeal in respect to the alleged reconciliation and allowing of the share to the opposite party in respect to Khata No. 190 and 192. Needless to say appeal filed by the petitioners for two Khatas was also allowed besides allowing of the appeal filed by the respondents against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer based on reconciliation and thus once reconciliation order has been set aside that clearly pre-supposes that validity of reconciliation was not accepted by the appellate authority and therefore, falling back on the reconciliation and the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer for negativing claim of the petitioner cannot be said to be justified. Otherwise also so far reconciliation is concerned there is no mention that Bisheshar is son of Pandohi and on that ground respondent is entitled to be cotenant. If this is not mentioned in the compromise and if the compromise order is set aside, submission of the Learned counsel for the respondents that facts mentioned in the compromise remains binding on the parties also may not improve the case of the respondents for the simple reason that it is not mentioned as fact in the reconciliation that respondent is son of Bisheshar who is son of Pandohi. Thus emphasis of non challenge to the reconciliation order by the petitioner appears to be not justified specially when it is said that on coming to know about reconciliation order, on getting notice in the appeal filed by the respondents, petitioner filed his own appeal in respect to two khatas. Laying claim by the petitioners on the basis of will and its non acceptance as mentioned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be automatically prove the case of the respondent and therefore, that cannot sole ground to discard petitioner's claim in the same manner as three documents filed by the respondents have been disbelieved by the Deputy Director of Consolidation yet his claim was accepted.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it appears to be not necessary to refer and discuss each and every decision as has been cited from both sides on the question of scope of interference by this court. The analysis as made above is neither in respect to sufficiency of evidence in respect to the finding nor there is any reassessment of evidence rather the consideration made is in respect to some inherent flaw in the approach of the courts below which makes the findings vitiated. Decisions cited from the respondent side as reported in AIR 1975 SC, 1111, AIR 1997, SC, 3467, and AIR 2003 SC, 1754 are also not directly on the question as they relates to civil proceedings.
14. For the analysis made above this court is of the considered view that findings returned by the courts below against the petitioner is vitiated in law. As writ petitioner Sheo Ram claims finding of two courts below in his favour in which documentary evidence has been believed and as the question of share between the parties is involved and as this court is proposing to send back the mater to the revisional court for fresh consideration it will be just and proper for the revisional court to examine the claim of both parties in respect to all the six Khatas in the light of their respective claim in the light of oral and documentary evidence, keeping in mind the reasonings and findings given by the courts below also.
15. For the reasons recorded above, both writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.5.83, is hereby quashed. The matter is send back to the revisional court for fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.