Case: Sheo Nand  Vs. Deputy Director Of Consolidation

1. The appellantjs, who had claimed Sirdari rights by adverse possession over different plots in three different villages, were allowed that right only in respect of one plot situated in village Jethupur and their claim in respect of other plots was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at the revisional stage under Sejction 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdingjs Act, 1953 (for short, `the Act) on a consideration of oral & documentary evidence. The Deputy Director, who carefully scrutinised the Revenue Records, filed by the parties, found many of the entries forged and fictitious; many other entries were found to have been made in the Revenue Records without complying with the mandatory requirements set out in the W.P. Land Records Manual. He ultimately came to the conclusion that since the recordednamely, Jethu @ Modhoo (respondent No. 12) was not available, having died a civil death, his property would vest in the Gram Sabha. The Deputy Director had also negatived the claim of Smt. Ganeshia, alleged sister of Jethu who had also laid claim over the plots belongingj to Jethu on the ground that Jethu who was unmarried and consequently had no issue, was not heard of for more than 10 years and had died a civil death and, therefore, the plots which belonged to him would come down to her bny inheritance and she was entitled to be recorded as Sirdar of all those plots. Her claim has been negatived on account of the finding that she was not the real sister of Jethu.

Reasoning: 12. Coming now to the Constitution of India, we find a similar provision contained in Article 296 which provides as underSubject as hereinafter provided, any property in the territory of India which , if this constitution and not come into operation, would have accrued to His Majesty or as the case may be, to the Ruler of an Indian State by escheat or lapse, or as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner, shall, if it is property situate in a State, vest in such State, and shall, in any other cases, vest in the union.Legislative competence to enact Legislation as to Escheat is relatable to the Entries 35 and 44 in the State List and Entry 32 in the Union List set out in the Seventh Sechedule to the Constitution.14. This Court in Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Bomaby, 1958 SCR 1122 : AIR 1958 SC 328 , as also in Superintendent & Legal Remembrancer State of West Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta, 1967 (2) SCR 170 : AIR 1967 SC 997 , has already upheld the property coming to State by escheat.15. Surprisingly, Jethu, who was claimed by the appellants to be dead as he was not heard of for more than seven years, and hissister, Smt. Ganeshia also contended that on account of this absence for more than seven years, Jethu should be treated to be dead, put in an appearance before the High Court and filed an application upon which the High Court observed in its judgment that since the claim put forward by Jethu depended upon questions of fact, he may approach the consolidation Authorities. In the present appeal also, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Jethu who has denied the case set up by the appellants and Smt. Ganeshia, who is said, in the counter affidavit, to be the real sister of Jethus father and not Jethu himself.16. If Jethu approaches the Consolidation Authorities, his claim would be investigated and appropriate orders would be apssed. In case it is found that the claims set up by the appellants and Smt. Geneshia were false and Jethu was alive whose property could not be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha, appropriate action would be taken against the appellantjs and Smt. Ganeshia for having get up the claim that Jethu, on account of his (sic) for more than seven years, had died a civil death.17. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants had filed a revision only in respect of one village before the Deputy Director under Section 48 of the Act and, therefore, the Deputy Director ought to have confined himself only to the question raised in that revision relating to that specific village. It is contended that the Deputy Director reopened the entire case in responct of all the three villages and adjudicated upon the rights of the appellants in respect of land situate in all the three villages. This, it is contended, was beyond the scope of Section 48 of the Act and consequently the judgment passed by the Deputy Director should be remanded for fresh hearing. We are not prepared to accept this contention.The Section gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either suo motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the Revenue Records may be prepared accordingly.20. Normally, the Deputy Director, in exercise of his powers, is not expected to disturb the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), but where the findings are perverse, in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record by the parties or that they are against the weight of evidence, it would be the duty of the Deputy Director to serutinise the whole case again so as to determine the correctness, legality or propriety ofthe orders passed by the authorities subordinate to him. In a case, like the present, where the entries in the Revenue record are fictitious of forged or they were recorded in contravention of the statutory provisions contained in the U.P. Land Records Manual or other allied statutory provisions, the Deputy Director would have full power under Section 48 tote the evidence on record so as to finally determine the rights of the parties bny excluding forged and fictitious revenue entries or entries not made in accordance with law.18. If, therfore, during the course of the hearing of the revision filed by the appellant under Section 48 of the Act, the Deputy Director reopened the whole case and scrutinised the claim of the appellants in respect of two other village, it could not be said that the Deputy Director exceeded his jurisdiction in any manner. It will be noticed that while scrutinising the evidence on record, the Deputy Director had noticed that the entries were fictitious and in recording some of the entries in the revenue record in favour ofthe appellants, statutory provisions including those contained in U.P. Land Records Manual were not followed. In that situation, the Deputy Director was wholly justified in looking into the legality of the entire proceedings anddisposing of the revision in the manner in which he has done.