In a significant judgment of Shambhu Chauhan v/s Ram Kirpal Alias Chirkut & Others., dated 25th November 2011, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the order passed in Civil Misc. W.P. No. 13286 of 1981, thereby quashing the decisions of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation at Deoria, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The case revolved around a dispute over land consolidation in Deoria district, where the appellant, Smt. Gulabi, claimed co-tenancy over certain disputed land and sought to establish her legal status as the daughter of a deceased individual, Aftee. The case raised key issues concerning the interpretation of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, specifically around the scope of revisional powers and the admissibility of evidence in land consolidation proceedings.

The dispute originated from land located in village Muda Dih, Deoria, where Khata Nos. 38 and 193 were the subject of a consolidation operation. The land had been recorded in the names of Sehati’s descendants following the death of Aftee in 1959. The appellant, Smt. Gulabi, filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, asserting her claim as the daughter of Aftee and demanding co-tenancy over the disputed land.

The core legal issue that emerged was whether the High Court correctly upheld the order passed by the Consolidation Officer under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Initially, the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation had reversed the decision of the Consolidation Officer, dismissing Smt. Gulabi’s claims. The primary issue at hand was the validity of her claim to be the daughter of Aftee and her right to co-tenancy in the land.

The Consolidation Officer, in its judgment dated 18th October 1975, had dismissed Gulabi’s objections, primarily on the grounds that she failed to establish her relationship with Aftee and did not provide sufficient evidence to prove her claim to the disputed land. This decision was challenged in appeal and revision, but the lower appellate authorities reversed the Consolidation Officer’s findings, prompting a judicial review by the High Court.

The issue of whether the revisional authorities had overstepped their jurisdiction was crucial in this case. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act grants the Director of Consolidation the power to call for records and examine decisions made by subordinate authorities. However, this power does not extend to reappreciating facts de novo, as clarified by the Supreme Court in previous rulings. Revisional authorities can interfere only when the findings of fact are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or contrary to law.

In this case, the High Court observed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had wrongly interfered with the findings of the Consolidation Officer. The officer’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence, and the findings were not perverse. The High Court therefore exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to correct the erroneous decisions of the lower authorities.

A critical aspect of the case was the evidence presented by Smt. Gulabi to support her claim. Her primary piece of evidence was a birth register entry, which purportedly recorded her as the daughter of Aftee. However, the birth register was found to be unreliable. The High Court noted that the document contained discrepancies, including contradictory entries, which cast doubt on its authenticity. Moreover, the document had not been properly corroborated by other evidence, such as testimonies from family members or acquaintances who could vouch for her relationship to Aftee.

The High Court found that the documentary evidence alone, particularly the flawed birth register, was insufficient to establish Smt. Gulabi’s claim. The absence of other corroborative evidence and the belated nature of her challenge to the mutation order further weakened her case.

The issue of delay also played a significant role in the proceedings. Smt. Gulabi did not challenge the mutation order for nearly 14 years after it was passed in 1959. The High Court observed that such a long delay, without any reasonable explanation, weakened her position. In land disputes, delay can affect the exercise of judicial discretion, and in this case, the Court deemed the challenge to be unreasonably delayed. This principle was supported by several precedents, including the landmark case of Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (2013), which emphasized that delay and laches could bar the exercise of jurisdiction.

The High Court’s decision to uphold the findings of the Consolidation Officer and dismiss the appeal was in line with established legal principles. The revisional authorities had erred in overturning the officer’s decision, which was based on sound evidence. Moreover, the documentary evidence presented by Smt. Gulabi was insufficient to prove her claim of being Aftee’s daughter, and the long delay in challenging the mutation order further weakened her case.

The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural norms, ensuring that only credible evidence is considered, and maintaining judicial discipline regarding delays in challenging legal decisions. This case serves as a reminder that revisional authorities should not act as courts of fact and should intervene only when there are significant errors in the findings of lower authorities.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment stands as a critical example of the application of the law in land consolidation disputes in Uttar Pradesh.