Writ Court Can Correct Findings Of Fact By Authorities When Such Findings Are Perverse Or Based On Incomplete & Erroneous Appreciation Of Evidence: SC
In a land dispute matter, the Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Allahabad High Court as it rightly corrected the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities.
The Apex Court observed that the findings were perverse and based on an incomplete and erroneous appreciation of evidence.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the order of the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation were set aside.
The Division Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol asserted, “The High Court, by its judgment, impugned herein, while allowing the writ petition rightly and exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, observed that the Courts below committed an error of law in accepting the inadmissible evidence produced by petitioner therein.”
AOR Shyamal Kumar represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate S. R. Singh represented the Respondent.
The disputed land, in this case, after the death of one Aftee, came to be recorded in the name of Sehati in pursuance of a mutation order. The disputed land continued to be recorded in the names of Jhagru and Bhusal sons of the Respondent. as Bhumidhar and Sirdar. In 1973, the disputed land was notified for consolidation operations. Objections were filed by one Gulabi under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 19531 before the Consolidation Officer, claiming herself to be the daughter of Aftee and co-tenancy over the disputed land. The Consolidation officer dismissed the objections filed by her and held that the disputed land for the last 16 years was in the possession of the respondents.
The findings of fact concerning the relationship of paternity stood reversed both by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities. However, the authorities did not appreciate the material in its entirety, resulting in conclusions of fact crossing the threshold of perversity. One of the issues which emanated in this case was whether the Revisional Authority can enter into the finding of facts.
Referring to Section 48 of the Act which deals with the revisional power of the Director of Consolidation Officer and its judgment in Ram Dular v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and Ors 1994 Supp (2) SCC 198, the Bench said, “...in our considered view, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, being a Revisional Authority, had jurisdiction to interfere with the finding on facts of the subordinate authority only when the said findings are perverse or not supported by any evidence on record or contrary to law.”
The Bench further observed that the findings of the Consolidation Officer were not perverse and so the interference therewith by the Revisional Authority was an error in law, which error stood corrected by the High Court in terms of the impugned judgment. “We may note that the burden to discharge the onus of paternity would lie upon Smt. Gulabi in terms of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”, it added.
“However, on independent analysis, we find that Smt. Gulabi rests her claim only on the birth register, which itself has not been proven in accordance with law, for none who had either maintained the record or made entries therein stands examined. That apart, the document itself does not inspire confidence for, as has been observed by the High Court, entries made therein are factually incorrect”, it said.
The Court also clarified, “It is the well-settled position of law by this Court that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot exercise such jurisdiction to reappreciate the entire evidence or finding of fact unless the concerned authority below acted beyond its jurisdiction or such findings suffer from error apparent on the face of the record or such finding beset with surmises or conjectures.”
Considering that from 1959 to 1973, no effort was made to challenge the mutation order, the Bench stated that the 14-year time gap was entirely unexplained and the belated challenge was afflicted by delay and laches.
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench also held, “The Appellate and Revision Authority, in our considered view, returned the findings of fact which were perverse, based on an incomplete and erroneous appreciation of evidence, which rightly stands corrected by the High Court. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.”
Cause Title: Shambhu Chauhan v. Ram Kirpal Alias Chirkut & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 882]
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Shyamal Kumar, Advocates Manish Kumar Kohli, B S Rajesh Agrajit, Ramesh Kumar Thakur, Vinay Kumar Ojha
Respondent: Senior Advocate S. R. Singh, AOR Tulika Mukherjee, Advocates Kumar Anurag Singh, Beenu Sharma, Venkat Narayan, M/S. Anuradha & Associates