[2008] 1 S.C.R. 836

AJAB SINGH & ORS.

ANTRAM AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 596 of 2009)

FEBRUARY 03, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGUL Y, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms C Act, 1950: s.341- Held: Findings based on analysis of factual aspect by revisional authority was not perverse nor suffering from error of jurisdiction - Hence Interference not called for.

Limitation Act, 1963: s. 6 - Applicability of, to proceedings

0 under Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

In the year 1981 and 1982, the contesting respondents were minors. At that time consolidation orders were passed by the Consolidation Officer and the E Settlement Officer. They filed revision application and an

application for condonation of delay in the year 1993, which were allowed. The said order was affirmed by High Court.

F The challenge in the present appeal is that order passed by revisional authority was bad in law as it was time barred.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

G HELD:1.1. Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is expressly applicable to the proceedings under the Uttar .

Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,

1950. Section 6 of the 1963 Act engrafts a provision enabling a minor to institute a proceeding by way of filing H 836

AJAB SINGH.& ORS. v. ANTRAM AND ORS. 837

a suit or by making an application after he ceases to be A -+ a minor within the time prescribed to any other person who is not a minor. The decision of the Revisional Authority in entertaining the revision at the instance of the contesting respondents therefore does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. [Paras 8 and 9] [839-H; 840- 8

A-B]

1.2. The appellants have not been able to prove that they are in actual physical possession. Inasmuch as it has been found that in the year 1377F, in 1379F in 804/3 no c 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 been filed, but D there is no proof of continuous possession. In the background of factual position, the findings of the lower authorities that the name of the appellants should be recorded as Bhumidar is not factually correct. A finding which is based on the analysis of the factual aspect by

th~ revisional authority is normally not upset by a

Suprior Court unless it is demonstrably shown to be

perverse or suffers from error of jurisdiction. In the case in hand, no such case is made out. [Paras 11, 12 and 14)

[840-D-F)

2. The Deputy Director Consolidation held that the appellants were 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 G Caste (Jatav). There is no error in the aforesaid findings

~ arrived at by the revisional authority. The ordet of the High Court, therefore, correctly approved the order passed by the revisional authority. There is no reason to take a different view. [Paras 13 and 15) [840-G-H; 841-B] H

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 596

of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7. 7.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P.No. 2676 of 2006.

Dr. Madan Sharma, Vijay Kumar Panditya, U.K. Sandyal, J.P. Tripathi, Asha Uphadhyay and R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellants.

Dr. Aaaray Lingaiah, Dr. A.K.R. Linga Reddy Patel, H.R. c Rathore and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

GANGUL Y, J.1. Leave granted.

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').

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

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.