REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.______/2009  (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.21582 OF 2006)

Ajab Singh & Ors.          ...Appellants

- Versus -

Antram & Ors.                    ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, 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

1

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

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,  Consolidation

dated 29.11.1982, have been upset by the Deputy

Director,  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 Deputy

Director  Consolidation  is  bad  in  law  and  was

passed ignoring the bar of limitation.  That is

the main challenge before us. 5. The admitted facts of the case are that in  the  year  1981  and  1982  both  Haribabu  and

Antram, the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2,

2

were  minors.   At  that  time  the  orders  dated

23.12.1981 and 29.11.1982 were passed. They filed

a revision application along with an application

for condonation of delay in the year 1993. In the

revision  application,  the  Deputy  Director

Consolidation,  while  relying  on  a  number  of

judgments,  held  that  the  revision  cannot  be

treated  as  barred  by  time.  It  appears  from  a

decision  in  Onkar  Nath  Dubey  Vs.     Dy.  Dir.  Of   Consolidation and Ors. – Civil Misc. Writ No.3066 of 1972 (R.D 1977-40 (HC), that Section 6 of the

Limitation Act read with Section 341 of the said

Act would be applicable in a case like this.  6. Section 6 of the Limitation Act provides where a person, entitled to institute a suit or

make  an  application  for  the  execution  of  a

decree,  at  the time from which  the  prescribed

period is to be reckoned, is a minor or insane,

or an idiot (here we are not concerned with the

last two situations), he may institute the suit

or make an application after the disability has

ceased and the same period which is allowed to

3

others will be available to such a person after

his disability ceases.   7. Section 341 of the said Act runs as under:-

“341. Application  of  certain Acts to the proceedings of this Act – Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the [Limitation  Act,  1963]  [including section 5 thereof] shall apply to the proceedings under this Act.”

8. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two provisions, we intend to hold that Section 6

of the Limitation Act is expressly applicable to

the proceedings under the said Act and 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.  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.

4

10. The other issues which have been found in favour of 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 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 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 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.

5

13. The  Deputy Director Consolidation has held that  the  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 authority. 14. It  is  a  well  settled  legal  position  that unless  finding  of  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 no reason to take a

different view.

16. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

.......................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

6

.......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) February 03, 2009

7