Kesho Prasad and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

G.S.N. Tripathl, J.—This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.12.72 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (D.D.C), Ballia, Respondent No. 1.

The facts of the case are very simple. In the basic year, Jeet and the father of the Petitioners was recorded. Even in some earlier records, his name finds place. But in a proceeding for correction of records, Jeet an admitted on 1.7.63 that he had no concern with the disputed property. On the basis of this admission, learned S.D.O. passed an order for correction of records and the names of Respondents were recorded. However, when the consolidation proceedings started, the names of the Petitioners also crept in.

The matter was agitated before the consolidation courts. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation (S.O.C.), by his order dated 15.6.71, did not accede to the request of the Respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondents filed Revision No. 15046 u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was heard and decided by the learned D.D.C. on 20.12.72.

It is relevant to note that although the admission dated 1.7.63 was considered by the S.O.C. as well as the D.D.C, but no effort was made to explain it away. In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the admission is the best evidence which the opposite party can adduce, it is conclusive of the matter and virtually decisive unless explained away.

In this case, strangely enough, neither before the S.O.C. nor before the D.D.C, this admission of Jeet was sought to be explained. Moti Lai, Respondent No. 2, appeared in the witness box. But he did not say anything as to how the admission of his father came into being in respect of the disputed property. Under these circumstances, the learned D.D.C. was justified in relying upon the admission of Jeet an dated 1.7.63, whereby he clearly surrendered his interest, if at all, In respect of the disputed property and admitted the case of the Respondents. So this is a conclusion based on evidence available on record. .

Other objection was that the revision was time-barred, the order of the S.O.C is dated 15.6.71. An application for copy was made by the revisionist on 25.6.71. It appears that due to some technical error for want of steps, his application was rejected. But later on, it was restored on 23.11.71. So the date of the application is 25.6.71/23.11.71. Hence, it is very much within time. Copy was received on 3.1.72 and the revision was filed on 10.1.72. So it was very much within limitation.

No manifest error of law on the face of record is available nor has any miscarriage of justice been established before me. After all, this is not an appellate court which has Jurisdiction to see the error of law and facts of any nature. This Court normally does not interfere in the petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution with the orders passed by the courts below on appreciation of facts.

Tills writ petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. Cost easy, Stay order dated 9.1.74 is vacated.