SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A WRIT COURT CAN CORRECT THE FACTS AND FINDINGS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, IF INCORRECT EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED BY THEM
A two Judge Bench comprising of Justice C.T Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a judgement dated 21.11.2024 in the matter of Shambhu Chauhan V. Ram Kirpal @ Chirkut & Ors. Civil Appeal no. 3311 of 2017 wherein the Bench held that factual conclusions and findings by local authorities can be corrected by a Writ Court if they are erroneous or based on incomplete and incorrect evidence.
Facts
The case involved a dispute over land (Khata Nos. 38 and 193) in the village Muda Dih, district Deoria. The land originally belonged to Sehati and Bandhoo, who were brothers. Bandhoo’s son, Algoo, was married to Aftee. Later, when Aftee passed away in 1959, and the disputed land was recorded in Sehati’s name through a Mutation Order dated 15.12.1959. Later, the land was recorded under the names of sons of Sehati, and Ram Kirpal @ Chirkut (Respondent). The contested land was notified for consolidation operations in 1973 with a notification dated July 12, 1973. In accordance with Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (Act), (Issue of extracts from records and statements and publication of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A and the issue of notices for inviting objections) before the Consolidation Officer, claiming herself to be the daughter of Aftee and co-tenant over the disputed land. The Consolidation Officer, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority provided differing decisions. The Consolidation Officer rejected Smt. Gulabi’s objections and determined that the Respondents had been in possession of the contested land for the previous 16 years. Ultimately, the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous W.P. No. 13286 of 1981 set aside the findings of the Appellate and Revisional Authorities and upheld the initial findings of the Consolidation Officer. This led to filing the Civil Appeal in the Apex Court.
Issues
- Was Smt. Gulabi the legitimate daughter of Algoo and successor to Aftee?
- Did the Revisional Authority exceed its jurisdiction by reversing findings of fact by the Consolidation Officer?
- Was the evidence provided by Smt. Gulabi sufficient to establish her claims?
- Was the challenge to the Mutation Order of 1959 barred by delay?
Decision by the Apex Court
The Honorable Court stated that the Appellate and Revisional Authorities had reversed the factual conclusions on the paternal relationship. The Authorities, however, did not fully understand the material, which led to factual judgments that went beyond the bounds of perversity. One of the issues which emanated in this case was whether the Revisional Authority can determine the question of finding of facts.
The Hon’ble Bench referred to Section 48 of the Act which deals with the revisional power of the Director of Consolidation Officer and also referred to a judgment of Ram Dular v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and Ors 1994 Supp (2) SCC 198, wherein the Bench held that-
“10. …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 Hon’ble Bench further noted that the Consolidation Officer’s conclusions were not twisted, therefore the Revisional Authority’s interference with them constituted a legal mistake which the High Court fixed in the contested ruling. The Hon’ble Court also stated that Smt. Gulabi will be responsible for fulfilling the paternity burden under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 (Burden of Proof).
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on independent examination also held that, Smt. Gulabi bases her claim solely on the birth register, which has not been validated legally because no one who kept the record or made entries therein is being investigated. Besides, the record itself lacks credibility since, as the Hon’ble High Court has noted, some of the entries are factually inaccurate.
The Hon’ble Court also stated that-
“17. 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 Hon’ble Bench stated that the 14-year time gap was entirely unexplained and the belated challenge was afflicted by delay and laches.
Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision, affirming the findings of the Consolidation Officer that Smt. Gulabi failed to prove her claims. Therefore, the Appeal was dismissed, and it was concluded that the Appellate and Revisional Authorities had erred in interfering with well-supported findings of fact.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that Smt. Gulabi did not provide sufficient evidence to establish her claim as the daughter of Aftee. The Court underlined the need of reliable evidence and the claimant’s burden of proof. Hence, the Appeal was dismissed, and the findings of the Consolidation Officer were upheld as correct and lawful.
ARJAV JAIN
ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES
If you want to get more information on the law on Writ Petitions, log on to our Youtube channel- The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips and watch the Episode.
Leave a Reply