Skip to content


Babu Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 17 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC756; (1981)4SCC246
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantBabu
RespondentDeputy Director of Consolidation
Excerpt:
.....leases, which by very definition, are a species of transfer of land. in the pre- sent case, the lands in dispute fell outside the landowner's reserved area and were therefore included in her surplus area. the first respondent, to be entitled to be a lessee, must prima facie show that the alienation in his favour, as a lessee, does not violate s. 10a(b) which prohibits all transfers and other dispositions which diminish .the surplus area of the landowner. under s. 2(1), the word 'landowner' includes also the lessee and the permissible area of the tenant is excluded from the surplus area of the landowner. merely because of the outstanding leases in favour of the prior tenants at the commencement of the act, the two items which were earlier leased to tenants do not ipso facto fall..........the parties that the appellant can succeed only if he is shown to have been in possession of the land in dispute in fasli year 1359 (which corresponds to the agricultural year 1951-52 reckoned according to the gregorian calendar). the deputy director, consolidation, who decided the case in second appeal gave a finding in his order dated 2nd june, 1969, that the appellant had not been proved to be in possession in that year. the finding was confirmed in revision by the director of consolidation on 22nd aug. 1969, and it was that order which was under challenge before the high court.3. the finding above mentioned being one of fact is not open to challenge before us unless it can be shown that it is perverse or based on no evidence at all, which is not the ease here. both the deputy.....
Judgment:

A.D. Koshal, J.

1. This appeal by certificate granted under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constn. is directed against an order dated 9th Sept.,1969 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, dismissing in lamina a petition under Article 226 of the Constn.

2. It is common ground between the parties that the appellant can succeed only if he is shown to have been in possession of the land in dispute in Fasli year 1359 (which corresponds to the agricultural year 1951-52 reckoned according to the Gregorian calendar). The Deputy Director, Consolidation, who decided the case in second appeal gave a finding in his order dated 2nd June, 1969, that the appellant had not been proved to be in possession in that year. The finding was confirmed in revision by the Director of Consolidation on 22nd Aug. 1969, and it was that order which was under challenge before the High Court.

3. The finding above mentioned being one of fact is not open to challenge before us unless it can be shown that it is perverse or based on no evidence at all, which is not the ease here. Both the Deputy Director and the Director have given cogent reasons to negative the claim of the appellant that he was in possession of the land in dispute in Fasli year 1359. Consequently, we see no reason for interference with the impugned order and dismiss the appeal with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //