Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)
Sheo Nand & Ors. C vs The Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 3 February, 2000 cites

Bombay Dyeing &Manufacturing Co., Ltd vs The State Of Bombay And Others on 20 December, 1957

Legislative competence to enact Legislation as to Escheat is relatable to the Entries 35 & 44 in the State List and Entry 32 in the Union List set out in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. This Court in Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bombay, 1958 SCR 1122 = AIR 1958 SC 328, as also in Superintendent & Legal Remembrancer State of West Bengal vs. Corporation of Calcutta, 1967 (2) SCR 170 = AIR 1967 SC 997, has already upheld the property coming to State by escheat. Surprisingly, Jethu, who was claimed by the appellants to be dead as he was not heard of for more than seven years, and his so-called sister, Smt. Ganeshia also contended that on account of his absence for more than seven years, Jethu should be treated to be dead, put in an appearance before the High Court and filed an application upon which the High Court observed in its judgment that since the claim put forward by Jethu depended upon questions of fact, he may approach the Consolidation Authorities. In the present appeal also, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Jethu who has denied the case set up by the appellants and Smt. Ganeshia, who is said, in the counter affidavit, to be the real sister of Jethu`s father and not of Jethu himself. If Jethu approaches the Consolidation Authorities, his claim would be investigated and appropriate orders would be passed. In case it is found that the claims set up by the appellants and Smt. Ganeshia were false and Jethu was alive whose property could not be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha, appropriate action would be taken against the appellants and Smt. Ganeshia for having set up the claim that Jethu, on account of his absence for more than seven years, had died a civil death. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants had filed a revision only in respect of one village before the Deputy Director under Section 48 of the Act and, therefore, the Deputy Director ought to have confined himself only to the question raised in that revision relating to that specific village. It is contended that the Deputy Director reopened the entire case in respect of all the three villages and adjudicated upon the rights of the appellants in respect of land situate in all the three villages. This, it is contended, was beyond the scope of Section 48 of the Act and consequently the judgment passed by the Deputy Director should be remanded for fresh hearing. We are not prepared to accept this contention. Section 48 of the Act provides as under:- "48. Revision and reference- (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case of proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1). Explanation.-(1) For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation.-(2) For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceedings, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect of finally disposing of such case or proceeding." The Section gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either suo motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the Revenue Records may be prepared accordingly. Normally, the Deputy Director, in exercise of his powers, is not expected to disturb the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), but where the findings are perverse, in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record by the parties or that they are against the weight of evidence, it would be the duty of the Deputy Director to scrutinise the whole case again so as to determine the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the authorities subordinate to him. In a case, like the present, where the entries in the Revenue record are fictitious or forged or they were recorded in contravention of the statutory provisions contained in the U.P. Land Records Manual or other allied statutory provisions, the Deputy Director would have full power under Section 48 to re-appraise or re-evaluate the evidence on record so as to finally determine the rights of the parties by excluding forged and fictitious revenue entries or entries not made in accordance with law. If, therefore, during the course of the hearing of the revision filed by the appellant under Section 48 of the Act, the Deputy Director reopened the whole case and scrutinised the claim of the appellants in respect of two other villages, it could not be said that the Deputy Director exceeded his jurisdiction in any manner. It will be noticed that while scrutinising the evidence on record, the Deputy Director had noticed that the entries were fictitious and in recording some of the entries in the revenue record in favour of the appellants, statutory provisions including those contained in U.P. Land Records Manual were not followed. In that situation, the Deputy Director was wholly justified in looking into the legality of the entire proceedings and disposing of the revision in the manner in which he has done. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 168 - Full Document

Superintendent & Legal ... vs Corporation Of Calcutta on 7 December, 1966

Legislative competence to enact Legislation as to Escheat is relatable to the Entries 35 & 44 in the State List and Entry 32 in the Union List set out in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. This Court in Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bombay, 1958 SCR 1122 = AIR 1958 SC 328, as also in Superintendent & Legal Remembrancer State of West Bengal vs. Corporation of Calcutta, 1967 (2) SCR 170 = AIR 1967 SC 997, has already upheld the property coming to State by escheat. Surprisingly, Jethu, who was claimed by the appellants to be dead as he was not heard of for more than seven years, and his so-called sister, Smt. Ganeshia also contended that on account of his absence for more than seven years, Jethu should be treated to be dead, put in an appearance before the High Court and filed an application upon which the High Court observed in its judgment that since the claim put forward by Jethu depended upon questions of fact, he may approach the Consolidation Authorities. In the present appeal also, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Jethu who has denied the case set up by the appellants and Smt. Ganeshia, who is said, in the counter affidavit, to be the real sister of Jethu`s father and not of Jethu himself. If Jethu approaches the Consolidation Authorities, his claim would be investigated and appropriate orders would be passed. In case it is found that the claims set up by the appellants and Smt. Ganeshia were false and Jethu was alive whose property could not be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha, appropriate action would be taken against the appellants and Smt. Ganeshia for having set up the claim that Jethu, on account of his absence for more than seven years, had died a civil death. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants had filed a revision only in respect of one village before the Deputy Director under Section 48 of the Act and, therefore, the Deputy Director ought to have confined himself only to the question raised in that revision relating to that specific village. It is contended that the Deputy Director reopened the entire case in respect of all the three villages and adjudicated upon the rights of the appellants in respect of land situate in all the three villages. This, it is contended, was beyond the scope of Section 48 of the Act and consequently the judgment passed by the Deputy Director should be remanded for fresh hearing. We are not prepared to accept this contention. Section 48 of the Act provides as under:- "48. Revision and reference- (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case of proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1). Explanation.-(1) For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation.-(2) For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceedings, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect of finally disposing of such case or proceeding." The Section gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either suo motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the Revenue Records may be prepared accordingly. Normally, the Deputy Director, in exercise of his powers, is not expected to disturb the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), but where the findings are perverse, in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record by the parties or that they are against the weight of evidence, it would be the duty of the Deputy Director to scrutinise the whole case again so as to determine the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the authorities subordinate to him. In a case, like the present, where the entries in the Revenue record are fictitious or forged or they were recorded in contravention of the statutory provisions contained in the U.P. Land Records Manual or other allied statutory provisions, the Deputy Director would have full power under Section 48 to re-appraise or re-evaluate the evidence on record so as to finally determine the rights of the parties by excluding forged and fictitious revenue entries or entries not made in accordance with law. If, therefore, during the course of the hearing of the revision filed by the appellant under Section 48 of the Act, the Deputy Director reopened the whole case and scrutinised the claim of the appellants in respect of two other villages, it could not be said that the Deputy Director exceeded his jurisdiction in any manner. It will be noticed that while scrutinising the evidence on record, the Deputy Director had noticed that the entries were fictitious and in recording some of the entries in the revenue record in favour of the appellants, statutory provisions including those contained in U.P. Land Records Manual were not followed. In that situation, the Deputy Director was wholly justified in looking into the legality of the entire proceedings and disposing of the revision in the manner in which he has done. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 70 - K S Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next