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

AJAB SINGH & ORS. versus ANTRAM AND ORS.

Decided
3 February 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 836 · 2009 INSC 99
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

1. Leave granted.

p. 838, margin C

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').

p. 838, margin D

3. A revision application was filed under the provisions of the said Act by the contesting 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

p. 838, margin E

Director reversed the findings of both the Consolidation Officer and those of Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

p. 838, margin E

4. One of the grievances which has been raised by the appellants herein is that the order of Consolidation Officer

p. 838, margin F

dated 23.12.1981 and that of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 29.11.1982, have been upset by the Deputy i;:>irector, 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

p. 838, margin F

complaint is that the order which has been passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation is bad in law and was passed 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.

pp. 838–840, margin G

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 error.

p. 840, margin A

10. The other issues which have been found in favour of the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 are basically questions of fact.

p. 840, margin A

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.

p. 840, margin C

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

p. 840, margin E

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.

p. 840, margin E

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 revisional authority.

p. 840, margin F

14. It is a well settled legal position that unless finding of A ·+ the revisional authority suffers from error of jurisdiction, the Superior Court should not interfere.

p. 841

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.

p. 841

16. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

p. 841

D.G. Appeal dismissed. C ;,

p. 841