Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 513 (ALL)

Ram Gopal v. Babu Ram

1984-07-24

GOPI NATH

body1984
JUDGMENT Gopi Nath, J.- This is a petition for review of my order dated September 6, 1982. By that order, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 2. The petitioners claimed to be the exclusive tenants of plot no. 2035 and asserted that Ramesh Chandra (respondent no. 4) had no concern with the same. They further claimed that they were co-tenure-holders along with Ganga Sahai (respondent no. 3). of plot no. 2036 to the exclusion of Babu Ram and Diwari Lal (respondent nos. 1 and 2). Petitioners' claim was contested by the respondents before the Consolidation authorities. The settlement Officer (Consolidation) negatived the claim of the petitioners in respect of both the plots. He considered the evidence on record as also the judgments of civil courts filed before him. On revision, the revisional authority affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the writ petition which was dismissed by me by order dated September 6, 1982 on the ground that the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) were findings of fact, based on an assessment of evidence and that the order of the revisional authority affirming the findings of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) suffered from no apparent error and did not require any interference. The petitioners have filed this review petition on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision referred to the Civil Court litigation and based his findings only on the findings of the civil court, which he could not do because the suit had abated in Second Appeal filed in this Court. The order dated 6.9.1982 passed by me accordingly required to be recalled and the writ petition heard afresh. I do not find any force in the contention. 3. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) decided the case on an appraisal of the evidence on record. He also referred to the litigation in the civil court. The Deputy Director of Consolidation affirmed the findings of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and clearly observed that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had considered the pedigree in detail, and then negatived the claim of the petitioners. Mere reference to the findings of the civil court in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not vitiate his judgment as he affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who had recorded the findings on a detailed consideration of the evidence on record. Mere reference to the findings of the civil court in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not vitiate his judgment as he affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who had recorded the findings on a detailed consideration of the evidence on record. In the writ petition, I referred to the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as also to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The findings of fact recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not suffer from any apparent error of law, hence the writ petition was dismissed. On a consideration of the material on record. I do not find any ground made out for the recalling of the order dated September 6, 1982. 4. The review petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case. I make no order as to costs.