PETITIONER:
KHAZAN SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HUKAM SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT21/09/1976
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
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
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