http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19  

                                        REPORTABLE

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              CIVIL APPEAL NO.5570 OF 2001

   Ram Avadh & Ors.                       ...Appellants

   Versus

   Ram Das & Ors                          ...Respondents

                      J U D G M E N T

   TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and

 order dated 22nd of May, 1998 passed by a learned

 single judge of the High Court of Judicature at

 Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in W.P. No. 2016 of

 1981 whereby the High Court had dismissed the

 writ petition filed by the appellants against an

 order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation,

 Sultanpur holding the sale deed dated 21st of May,

 1969 in favour of the appellants to be illegal.

                                                     1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19  

2.This case has a chequered history, which would be

 clear from the following facts leading to the

 filing of this appeal.

          The appellants alleged that by virtue of a

   registered sale deed dated 21st of May, 1969,

   they are the vendees of = of the land in Khata

   No. 98 (in short "the suit property") recorded

   in the name of the vendors viz., Bhagirati,

   Putai, Ram Newaj, Matadin, Bachai and Ram Avadh

   alias Avadhu (in short "Bhagirati & ors.") who

   are co-tenure holders with the respondents. A

   notification          under    Section       4   of    the      U.P.

   Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short

   "the     Act")        was     issued     for        consolidation

   operation.       The        appellants       filed     objections

   under       Section    9(2)     of     the    Act     before    the

   Consolidation Officer for recording their names

   in place of Bhagirati & ors. in the revenue

   records contending that they had obtained the

   registered sale deed dated 21st of May, 1969

   but    by    mistake     of    the   Lekhpal,        their     names

   could not be recorded in the revenue records.

                                                                    2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19  

The respondents also filed objections claiming

that Bhagirati & ors. or their father Faqir had

no share in the suit property and that the suit

property belonged to one Sanehi exclusively and

therefore, Bhagirati & Ors. did not have any

right     to   sell      the     same.      Accordingly,     the

respondents strongly contested the case of the

appellants who prayed for inclusion of their

names in place of Bhagirati & Ors.

       By an order dated 15th of March 1970, the

Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of

the appellants and directed that their names be

recorded       against      the      suit       property.    The

respondents preferred an appeal under section

11(1) of the Act before the Settlement Officer,

Consolidation but the same was dismissed by the

order    dated    18th     of    December,      1970.   Feeling

aggrieved,      the   respondents          filed   a    revision

under     Section     48        of   the    Act    before    the

Assistant Director - Consolidation, which was

allowed by an order dated 16th of August 1971.

Against    this     order       passed     in   revision,    the

                                                            3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19  

   appellants filed a writ petition being WP No.

   1797 of 1971 and the same was allowed on 14th

   of November, 1978 and the matter remanded to

   the    Assistant      Director       -    Consolidation          for

   deciding   the     revision        afresh.       The     Assistant

   Director      Consolidation         allowed       the     revision

   this   time    also    by    his     order       dated    20th    of

   February       1981.        Feeling            aggrieved,        the

   appellants     filed    a    writ    petition          before    the

   High Court being 2016 of 1981, which, however,

   was dismissed by the judgment and order dated

   22nd of May 1998. It is this decision of the

   High   Court,    which      is     now     impugned       in    this

   appeal.

3.Before we proceed further, considering the fact

 that concurrent findings of fact arrived at by

 the   Consolidation      Officer       and        the     Settlement

 Officer-Consolidation          were        set     aside    by     the

 Assistant    Director-Consolidation                 in     revision,

 whose decision was affirmed by the High Court in

 the impugned judgment, we deem it expedient to

                                                                    4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19  

 look    at   the    findings    of   High        Court   and    the

 Consolidation Officer.

        Let us first look at the findings of the

   High Court relying on which the writ petition

   of the appellants was dismissed. The findings

   are as under: -

i)At the time of Third settlement, Sanehi was the

 only    recorded     tenure-holder          of    the    land    in

 question and Faqir           was not   recorded as         a co-

 tenure holder.

   ii) The name of Faqir was recorded only in the

   year 1356 Fasli without there being any order

   showing     the    title     of   Faqir    or    showing      the

   ground on account of which his name was entered

   as a co-tenure holder of the suit property and

   therefore, there was no evidence on record to

   show how his name could be entered as a co-

   tenure holder in the year 1356 Fasli.

   iii) The mere fact that in the khetauni of 1356

   Fasli, it was mentioned that the tenure-holders

   were occupying the land for 15 years, the same

                                                                 5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19  

could not confer any title on Faqir whose name

did not find place at the time of the Third

settlement.

iv) Unless it was shown by Bhagirati & Ors.

that    the    title     of   the     suit      property   was

acquired by Faqir before 1356 Fasli and unless

the mode of acquisition of title was shown, the

mere recording of Faqir’s name as a co-tenure

holder of Sanehi in the year 1356 Fasli would

not make Faqir a co-tenure holder of Sanehi in

the suit land.

v) The Assistant Director of Consolidation in

revision had rightly held that the entry in

favour of Faqir was fictitious and could not

have    been   relied     upon   by       the   Consolidation

officer and the assistant settlement officer

(consolidation) to confer any title on Faqir,

his heirs Bhagirati & Ors. and their vendees,

the appellants.

vi)    In   connection    with      the    land   of   another

village, it was mentioned that Sanehi had not

taken patta of land for the benefit of his

                                                          6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19  

brother Faqir and that being so, the jointness

with regard to the suit property could also not

be assumed.

vii) Since the appellants were the transferees

from Bhagirati & ors. and since the title of

Faqir, the ancestor of Bhagirati & Ors. could

not be established, the appellants were rightly

denied the relief by the Assistant Director of

Consolidation.

viii)   The   benefit   of    the    authority     of    the

Supreme   Court   reported     in    Sri   Nath   Singh       &

Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue [AIR 1968 SC 1351]

was not available to the appellants because the

entry of 1356 Fasli in favour of Faqir was

fictitiously recorded and therefore, no right

of   co-tenure    holder     could   be    said   to    have

accrued to Faqir.

    As noted herein earlier, the High Court

dismissed the writ petition of the appellants

on the above findings and affirmed the decision

                                                         7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19  

       and    the   findings       of    the    Assistant       Director-

       Consolidation passed by the latter in revision.

4. In    contrast to the above findings of the High

 Court relying on which the appellant’s claim was

 rejected, the Consolidation Officer arrived at

 the following findings in his order dated 15th of

 May, 1970 and upheld the claim of the appellants:

 -

i) The    extracts       of   Khatauni          1356   Fasli     and    1357

  Fasli       revealed       that       the    name     of     Faqir   was

  present and that he became Sirdar in 1350 Fasli

  as on file.

       ii)    Ram     Das    had    deliberately             avoided    the

       disclosure of his grandfather’s name Dihar or

       Dehpal but his ignorance regarding the name of

       his grandfather i.e. Sanehi’s father would not

       mean    that    Dihar   or       Dehpal    was    not     Sanehi’s

       father.

       iii) The assertion regarding Dihar or Dehpal as

       made    by     Bhagirathi        finds     support       from    the

       extract of settlement and certified copy of the

       extract of 1356 Fasli, 1357 Fasli on record.

                                                                        8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19  

iv) Faqir was an occupant in 1356 Fasli and his

heirs had been entered in the Khata in 1368

Fasli by an order of the court after the death

of Faqir in 1367 Fasli.

v) The name of Faqir was present in 1356 Fasli

alongwith Sanehi and by virtue of having been

in physical cultivatory occupation of the plots

from 1356 Fasli onwards, Faqir became Sirdar

thereof    and     his    sons,   whose     names     had   been

recorded, were the bonafide Sirdar of the lands

and were entitled to = share because Ram Dass

did not explain who they were if not from that

branch.

vi) As to whether Bhagirati & ors. had the

right to transfer, the statement of A.R.K. on

the file showed that on 1.5.1969, ten times

rent   had    been       deposited     in    the     government

treasury     and   therefore,        the    vendor    would   be

deemed to have become bhumidari of the land

from the date of depositing the amounts in the

state treasury.

                                                             9

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19  

5. The above findings of the Consolidation Officer

 were    affirmed        by        the   Assistant             Settlement

 Officer, Consolidation in his order dated 18th of

 December 1970.

   6.    The   learned        counsel      for       the       appellants

   argued before us that under Section 48 of the

   Act, the Assistant Director of Consolidation

   did not have the jurisdiction to set aside the

   findings of fact recorded by the courts below

   without       any      basis          and        on      assumptions

   particularly in view of the fact that the name

   of    Faqir     was        recorded         as        cultivator     in

   possession along with Sanehi, both being real

   brothers      and     sons       of    Dehpal.          The    learned

   counsel     for     the         appellants        further       argued

   before us that the appellants would be entitled

   to    the   benefit        of    Section         20    of     the   U.P.

   Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950

   (in short "UPZA&LR Act) which provides that the

   entries in the base year 1356 Fasli are final

   and   confers       all    rights      on    the       occupant     who

                                                                        10

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19  

   would be entitled to retain possession thereof.

   It was also argued that the High Court and the

   revisional      court        had    adopted       an      erroneous

   approach     by    relying          on     the    result        of        a

   litigation in respect of some other land in a

   different village wherein Sanehi was held to be

   exclusive lessee and therefore, it was argued

   that it could not be assumed that the present

   revenue    record      showing       joint       possession          and

   occupation        of        Faqir        and     Sanehi      became

   unreliable. Finally, the learned counsel for

   the   appellants       contended         before    us     that       the

   respondents did not take any steps to challenge

   the revenue record containing the name of Faqir

   before any court and in fact, the names of

   Faqir’s sons i.e. Bhagirati & Ors. were mutated

   in 1368 Fasli after the death of Faqir by an

   order     passed       by     the    Tehsildar          where        the

   respondents were on notice.

7.These submissions of the learned counsel for the

 appellants were contested by the learned counsel

 appearing    on     behalf      of     the       respondents.          The

                                                                        11

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19  

 learned counsel for the respondents argued that

 the suit property is the sole acquisition of the

 respondent’s      grandfather     Sanehi       and   that       they

 have been occupying the same exclusively after

 his death and thus are the sole holders of the

 suit property and therefore, Bhagirati & Ors. had

 no   title   of   the    land    in    dispute    which     could

 entitle them to sell the suit property to the

 appellants. It was further argued that Faqir got

 a    fictitious   entry    of    his    name     made      in    the

 Khetauni 1356 Fasli and his name was not present

 at the time of the Third Settlement.

8.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

 and after examining the impugned judgment and the

 orders of the courts below and other materials on

 record, we are of the opinion that this appeal

 deserves to be allowed for the reasons set out

 hereinafter.

9.From the admitted pedigree chart produced before

 us, it is pellucid that Faqir and Sanehi were

 real   brothers    and    sons    of    Dehpal.      The   record

 shows that the suit property was recorded in the

                                                                  12

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19  

name of Faqir and Sanehi in the Khatauni for 1356

Fasli and this entry continued in the Khatauni

for 1357 Fasli to 1366 Fasli. It was a finding of

fact    of        the    Consolidation          Officer,        which    was

affirmed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation

that     Faqir          was     in      possession         as     recorded

cultivator in possession from 1356 Fasli onwards.

It     was        also      a    finding        of      fact      of     the

Consolidation            Officer       that   after      the     death   of

Faqir    in        1356    Fasli,       the     names    of      his    sons

Bhagirati & Ors. were mutated in place of their

father in 1368 Fasli on the basis of an order

passed       by    the    Tehsildar       where      the     respondents

were    on        notice.       These    findings       of      fact    were

reversed          by     the    revisional        court         which    was

affirmed by the High Court on the ground that the

name of Faqir was not present at the time of the

Third Settlement and therefore, the Khatauni for

the     year       1356        Fasli     upto     1366       Fasli      were

fictitious. It is significant to note that the

respondents had not taken any steps to expunge

the names of the vendors from the record even

                                                                        13

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19  

though they continued to be recorded along with

the respondents.        Furthermore, a lot of weight

has been placed by the revisional court as well

as the High Court on the result of a litigation

in respect of some other plots wherein it was

concluded that a certain lease does not appear to

have been entered by Sanehi for the benefit of

the joint Hindu family and as such, Faqir could

not be held to be a co-tenant. We are of the

opinion that the result of that litigation should

not have any bearing on the present case. It is

an admitted fact that in the year 1356 Fasli, the

name of Faqir was entered along with Sanehi in

the Khetauni and yet it was held that this must

be wrong because in respect of land in another

village, the lease was held to be exclusively

that of Sanehi and not for the benefit of Faqir.

This, in our opinion, has been given exaggerated

and undue importance by both the revisional and

the High Court.         The fact remains that Faqir’s

name was entered in 1356 Fasli, which was not

challenged   by   the   respondents   till   1366   Fasli

                                                     14

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19  

 i.e.     for    almost    11    years.       From     1356     Fasli

 onwards,       throughout      the     names     of    Faqir     and

 thereafter his sons are continuing in the revenue

 record    and     in   that    view     of   the      matter,    the

 concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the

 courts below should not have been disturbed by

 the revisional court and the High Court.

10.The learned counsel for the respondents argued

 before us that         the name        of Faqir       was entered

 fictitiously without there being any order of any

 authority showing the basis on which his name was

 entered. It is true that there does not appear

 any order passed by any competent authority to

 show how Faqir got his name entered in 1356 Fasli

 but that by itself would not lead us to infer

 that the name was fictitiously entered. Nothing

 has been shown to us to prove that Sanehi and

 Faqir    had    separated      prior    to     1915    except    the

 result of the litigation of 1944 on which, as

 noted hereinabove, we are not inclined to place

 much    weight.    From   the    admitted       pedigree       chart

 also, as noted herein earlier, it is clear that

                                                                  15

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19  

 Faqir and Sanehi were real brothers and sons of

 Dehpal. In this view of the matter, it would not

 be appropriate to raise such serious doubts over

 how Faqir’s name appeared in the Khetauni. In any

 view of the   matter, in   our view,   the vendors

 would be entitled to the benefit of Section 20 of

 the UPZA&LR Act. Section 20 provides that where

 the person is recorded as an occupant of any land

 in Khasra Khatauni for 1356 Fasli, which has been

 taken as the base year, he shall be entitled to

 retain possession thereof. If the entry was not

 challenged, it could not be doubted and have to

 be deemed to be correct in view of explanation

 III to Section 20 which provide that the entries

 in the year 1356 Fasli is final and confers all

 rights on occupant. In the present case, the name

 of Faqir appeared along with Sanehi in the 1356

 Fasli upto 1366 to 1368. Mutation was carried out

 after considering objections of respondents, by

 the Tehsildar.

11. There is another aspect of this matter. In the

 present case, even if it is found that the names

                                                16

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19  

 of Faqir and subsequently Bhagirati & ors. were

 fictitiously recorded, the fact remains that they

 were recorded Bhumidars and co-tenure holders (it

 is   an     admitted         fact     that       Bhagirati        &   Ors.

 deposited        ten    times        the       land     revenue       under

 Sections 134 to 137 of the UP ZA & LR Act for

 grant of Bhumidari Sanad in respect of the suit

 land)      and    that       no     step        was     taken    by     the

 respondents ever to challenge their title to the

 suit property or the inclusion of their names in

 the revenue record. For this reason, the interest

 of   the    present      appellants             cannot    be     defeated

 particularly          when    they       had    made     due    enquiries

 under      Section       55(1)(b)          of     the     Transfer       of

 Property Act that the vendors were the recorded

 Bhumidars        of    the        suit     property        and    had        a

 transferable          right    before          purchasing       the    suit

 property and therefore, in our opinion, they were

 bonafide purchasers for value without notice.

12. Before   parting with this judgment, we may also

 consider the submission of the learned counsel

 for the appellants that the revisional court viz.

                                                                         17

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19  

Assistant           Director,           Consolidation             had     no

jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act to set

aside    the    concurrent             findings       of   fact     of   the

Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer,

Consolidation. In support of her submission, she

relied on two decisions of this court in Ram

Avtar & Ors. Vs. Ram Dhani & Ors.[(1997) 2 SCC

263]     and        Ram        Dular        Vs.     Dy.    Director      of

Consolidation, Jaunpur & Ors. [JT 1994 (3) SCC

341]. From these authorities, it is clear that

the Director Consolidation under Section 48 of

the     Act    does        not        have    the     jurisdiction        to

interfere with the findings of fact, without any

basis    and        on     assumptions.              In    view    of    our

foregoing discussion, we are, therefore, of the

considered      view           that    it    was     not   open     to   the

Assistant Director Consolidation, whose order was

affirmed       by        the    High     Court       in    the    impugned

judgment,       to        interfere           with    the        concurrent

findings of fact arrived at by the Consolidation

                                                                        18

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19  

 Officer       as    also     the    Settlement                   Officer,

 Consolidation.

13.For    the   reasons      aforesaid,     we       set       aside           the

 judgment of the High Court and the Revisional

 Court     and      affirm     the       decisions                of          the

 Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer,

 Consolidation. The appeal is thus allowed. There

 will be no order as to costs.

                                             .....................................J.                                              [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

                                           ........................................J.                                            [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]     New Delhi

   May 14,2008.

                                                                               19