Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KHAZAN SINGH & ORS. versus HUKAM SINGH & ORS.

Decided
21 September 1976
Judges listed
HANS RAJ KHANNA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 636 · 1976 INSC 225

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KHANNA, J.-This appeal on certificate is against the order of Allahabad High Court whereby that Court dismissed in limine the writ petition filed by the appellants, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated June 15, 1964 of the Settlement officer and the. order dated September 17, 1964 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation of Holdings.

p. 636, margin F

The dispute between the parties relates to khata No. 150. The appellants raised objection before the consolidation authorities on the ground that they along with the respondents were joint tenants in Khatas Nos. 150, 369 and 391. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claims of the appellants in respect of khatas N,l~ 369 and 391. He, however, held that the appellants were joint tenants alon~ with the respondents in khata No. 150. The respondents went up in appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer in so far as he had held that the appellants were joint tenants in khata No. 150 Cross-objections were filed by the appellants in respect of the disallowance of their objection regarding khata Nos. 369 and 391. The .cross-objections of the appellants were dismissed by the Settlement .Officer on the ground that they were barred by time. So far as khata No. 150 is concerned, the Settlement Office11 held that the appellants were not joint tenants in th~t khata. The appeal filed; by the respondents was consequently allowed and the objection filed by the appellants .before the Consolidation Officer was dismissed in toto. The order of the Settlement Officer ii\ this respect is dated June J 5, 1964. The appellants then went up in revision, but the revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as per order dated September 17, 1964. The appellants thereafter filed the writ petition for a writ -of certiorari to _quash the orders dated June 15, 1964 and September 17, 1964. The said petition, as stated, above, was dismissed.

pp. 636–637, margin F

We have heard Mr. Sen' on behalf of the appellants and· Mr. Goyal ·on behalf of the respondents and are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The question with which we are concerned is whether the appellants are joint tenants in khata No. 150 along with the respondents. In this respect we find that the Settlement Officer .examined the entries in the revenue records. It was found that so far as the land in dispute is concerned, it was held in Fasli 1280 hy Hriday Singh, who was the common ancestor of the parties. In 1307 Fasli, Himmat Singh, an ancestor of the appellants and Suraj Mall, an ancestor of the respondents, jointly held tha~ land. Subsequent to that, the land in dispute was held exclusively by the respondents and their ancestors. The Settlement Officer inferred from these circumstances that subsequent to 1307 Fasli, there was some partition between the parties· or some othe~ arrangement similar to partition, as a result of which the land in dispute fell to the share of the respondents. As this finding of the Settlement Officer is essentially a finding of fact :and was arrived at after consideration of the relevant entries in the revenue records, the same cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. · It may be that some other view, and what according to Mr. Sen was a better view, could have been arrived at on the facts, but the position in law is clear that the High Court in a writ petition cannot interfere with a finding of fact as long as tha~ finding\ is based upon the relevant circumstances and is not shown to be perverse. We find no such infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Settlement Officer. The finding was not also interfered with when the appellants went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The High Court in the circumstances cannot be said to be in error in dismissing the writ petition in limine.

p. 637, margin C

We may add that Mr. Goyal during the course of arguments has not disputed the proposition that the respondents are not entitled to any share in the land which is exclusively held by the appellants and is recorded exclusively in their names in the revenue records of 1346 Fasli.

p. 637, margin G

As a result of the above, thd appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances. with no order as to costs. · S.R. Appeal dismissed.

p. 637, margin H