http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: KHAZAN SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HUKAM SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/09/1976

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ UNTWALIA, N.L. SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1977 AIR 2032            1977 SCR  (1) 636  1977 SCC  (3) 351

ACT:             Writ  jurisdiction--High Courts cannot interfere with  a         finding  of fact based upon the relevant  circumstances  and         when  it is not shown to be perverse-Constitution  of  India         Article 226.

HEADNOTE:             The appellants raised an objection be.fore the  consoli-         dation authorities claiming joint tenancy with the  respond-         ents  in respect of khatas 150, 369 and 391, which  was  re-         jected  except  in respect of khata  150.   The  respondents         filed  an appeal against the orders relating to  khata  150.         The  appellants filed cross appeals in respect of khata  369         and  391  and cross objection in respect of khata  no.  150.         The  Settlement Officer rejected the cross appeals  as  time         barred and allowed the respondents’ appeal holding that  the         appellants  were not joint tenants in khata No. 150.   Since         the  revision  before the Deputy Director  of  Consolidation         failed,  the appellants filed a writ petition for a writ  of         certiorari, which was dismissed in limine.         Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court,             HELD:  The position in law is clear that the High  Court         in  a writ petition cannot interfere with a finding of  fact         as  long as that finding is based upon the relevant  circum-         stances  and  is not shown to be perverse.  In  the  instant         case,   the   finding   of   the   Settlement   Officer   is         essentially  .a  finding of fact and was  arrived  at  after         consideration  of  the relevant entries in the  revenue  re-         cords; the finding was not also interfered with in  revision         and the. same cannot be interfered with in a writ  petition.         [637F-G]

JUDGMENT:             CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal   No.   1643         of 1968.             (From  the  Judgment and Order dated  19-8-1965  of  the         Allahabad High Court in CiVil Misc.   Writ No. 5475/64).         A.K. Sen and E.C. Agarwala, for the appellants         M/s. J.P..Goyal & Pal Singh, for respondents Nos. 1--7.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       Judgment of the Court was delivered by             KHANNA,  J.--This appeal on certificate is against   the         order  of Allahabad High Court whereby that Court  dismissed         in limine the writ petition filed by the appellants, seeking         a writ of  certiorari to quash the order dated June 15, 1964         of the Settlement officer and the order dated September  17,         1964 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation of Holdings.             The  dispute  between the parties relates to  khata  No.         50.   The appellants raised objection before the  consolida-         tion  authorities   on the ground that they along  with  the         respondents were joint tenants  in Khatas Nos. 150, 369  and         391.  The Consolidation Officer rejected the claims  of  the         appellants in respect of khatas Nos. 369 and 391. He, howev-         er,   held  that  the appellants were joint  tenants   along         with  the  respondents in khata. No. 150.   The  respondents         went  up  in appeal against the order of  the  Consolidation         Officer  in so far as    had held that the  appellants  were         joint  tenants in khata No. 150 Cross-objections were  filed         by  the appellants in respect of the disallowance  of  their         objection regarding khata Nos. 369 and 391.   The         637         cross-objections  of  the appellants were dismissed  by  the         Settlement  Officer on the ground that they were  barred  by         time.  So far as khata No. 150 is concerned, the  Settlement         Officer  held that the appellants were not joint tenants  in         that khata.   The appeal filed by the respondents was conse-         quently  allowed and the objection filed by  the  appellants         before the Consolidation Officer was dismissed in toro.  The         order  of  the Settlement-Officer in this respect  is  dated         June  15, 1964.   The appellants then went up  in  revision,         but  the  revision was dismissed by the Deputy  Director  of         Consolidation  as per order dated September 17, 1964.    The         appellants thereafter filed the writ petition for a writ  of         certiorari  to  quash  the orders dated June  15,  1964  and         September  17, 1964.   The said petition, as  stated  above,         was dismissed.         We  have heard Mr. Sen on behalf of the appellants  and  Mr.         Goyal behalf of the respondents and are of the opinion  that         there  is  no merit in this appeal. The question with  which         we are concerned is whether the appellants are joint tenants         in  khata  No.  150 along with the  respondents.    In  this         respect  we  find that the Settlement Officer  examined  the         entries  in the revenue records.   It was found that so  far         as  the land in dispute is concerned, it was held  in  Fasli         1280  by  Hriday Singh, who was the common ancestor  of  the         parties.   In 1307 Fasli,  Himmat Singh, an ’ancestor of the         appellants  and Suraj Mall, an ancestor of the  respondents,         jointly  held that land.   Subsequent to that,  the land  in         dispute  was held exclusively by the respondents  and  their         ancestors.    The  Settlement Officer  inferred  from  these         circnmstances that subsequent to 1307 Fasli, there was  some         partition  between  the parties or  some  other  arrangement         similar  to  partition,  as a result of which  the  land  in         dispute  ’fell  to the share of the respondents.    As  this         finding  of the Settlement Officer is essentially a  finding         of   fact  and  was arrived at after  consideration  of  the         relevant entries in the revenue records, the same cannot  be         interfered  with  in a writ petition. It may  be  that  some         other view, and what according to Mr. Sen was a better view,         could  have been arrived at on the facts, but  the  position         in  law  is  clear that the High Court in  a  writ  petition         cannot  interfere  with a finding of fact as  long  as  that         finding is based upon the relevant circumstances and is  not         shown  to  be perverse.   We find no such infirmity  in  the         finding arrived at by the Settlement Officer.   The  finding

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       was not also interfered with when the appellants went up  in         revision  before the Deputy Director of  Consolidation.  The         High  Court  in the circumstances cannot be said  to  be  in         error in dismissing the writ petition in limine.             We may add that Mr. Goyal during the course of arguments         has  not disputed the proposition that the  respondents  are         not  entitled to any share in the land which is  exclusively         held by the appellants and is recorded exclusively in their.         names in the revenue records of 1346 Fasli.             As  a  result  of the above, the appeal  fails  and’  is         dismissed,  but  in the circumstances with no  order  as  to         costs.         S.R.                                            Appeal  dis-         missed.         638