SLP (Civil) NO.21582 OF 2006
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.-
2. This appeal arises out of a
consolidation proceeding under the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to
as `the said Act').
3. A revision application was filed
under the provisions of the said Act by the contesting 1 respondent Nos.
1 and 2 before the Deputy Director Consolidation, Agra as they were
aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer and the order of the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director reversed the
findings of both the Consolidation Officer and those of Settlement
4. One of the grievances which has
been raised by the appellants herein is that the order of Consolidation
Officer dated 23.12.1981 and that of the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation dated 29.11.1982, have been upset by the Deputy Director,
Consolidation while entertaining a revision filed by the contesting
respondents on 10.8.1993, which according to the appellant, is barred by
limitation. So the complaint is that the order which has been passed by
the Deputy Director Consolidation is bad in law and was passed ignoring
the bar of limitation. That is the main challenge before us.
5. The admitted facts of the case
are that in the year 1981 and 1982 both Haribabu and Antram, the
contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2, 2 were minors. At that time the
orders dated 23.12.1981 and 29.11.1982 were passed. They filed a
revision application along with an application for condonation of delay
in the year 1993. In the revision application, the Deputy Director
Consolidation, while relying on a number of judgments, held that the
revision cannot be treated as barred by time. It appears from a decision
in Onkar Nath Dubey Vs. Dy. Dir. Of Consolidation and Ors. - Civil
Misc. Writ No.3066 of 1972 (R.D 1977-40 (HC), that Section 6 of the
Limitation Act read with Section 341 of the said Act would be applicable
in a case like this.
6. Section 6 of the Limitation Act
provides where a person, entitled to institute a suit or make an
application for the execution of a decree, at the time from which the
prescribed period is to be reckoned, is a minor or insane, or an idiot
(here we are not concerned with the last two situations), he may
institute the suit or make an application after the disability has
ceased and the same period which is allowed to 3 others will be
available to such a person after his disability ceases.
7. Section 341 of the said Act runs
as under:- "341. Application of certain Acts to the proceedings of this
Act - Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the
provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870, the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 and the [Limitation Act, 1963] [including section 5
thereof] shall apply to the proceedings under this Act."
8. On a conjoint reading of the
aforesaid two provisions, we intend to hold that Section 6 of the
Limitation Act is expressly applicable to the proceedings under the said
Act and Section 6 of the Limitation Act referred to above engrafts an
enabling provision to a minor to institute a proceeding by way of filing
a suit or by making an application after he ceases to be a minor within
the time prescribed to any other person who is not a minor.
9. The decision of the Revisional
Authority in entertaining the revision at the instance of the contesting
respondent Nos.1 and 2 therefore does not suffer from any jurisdictional
10. The other issues which have been
found in favour of the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 are basically
questions of fact.
11. The appellants herein have not
been able to prove that they are in actual physical possession. Inasmuch
as it has been found that in the year 1377F, in 1379F in 804/3 no
possession is shown, in 1382F possession has been shown to be of one
year, in 1383F in one crop nothing has been sown. In 1384F no one has
been shown to be in possession, Khasra for 1386F has not been filed and
the Khasras from 1375F to 1385F have been filed, but there is no proof
of continuous possession.
12. In the background of this
factual position, the findings of the lower authorities that the name of
the appellants should be recorded as Bhumidar is not factually correct.
Thus a finding which is based on the analysis of the factual aspect by
the revisional authority is normally not upset by a superior Court
unless it is demonstrably shown to be perverse. In the case in hand, no
such case is made out. 5
13. The Deputy Director
Consolidation has held that the appellants are not the actual
cultivators and actual cultivator cannot be deprived of his land on
technical ground especially when revisionists belong to a weak section
of the community as they belong to Scheduled Caste (Jatav). We also do
not find any error in the aforesaid findings arrived at by the
14. It is a well settled legal
position that unless finding of the revisional authority suffers from
error of jurisdiction, the Superior Court should not interfere.
15. The order of the High Court,
therefore, has correctly approved the order passed by the revisional
authority. We see no reason to take a different view.
16. The appeal is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Print This Judgment