# Dayaram v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 1302
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-24
- **Case number:** J. Writ-B No. 2896 of 2023
- **Bench:** Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dayaram-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50865
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Revenue Law - Partition of Holdings -
Concurrent Findings of Fact - Petitioner
challenged
the
orders
dated
19.07.2023,
31.05.2017,
and
13.05.2016,
alleging
inequitable allocation of shares in a partition suit
under Section 176/177 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Held,
the findings of the Sub Divisional Officer, upheld
by the Commissioner and Board of Revenue,
were based on the kurrafaat report dated
17.04.2016, prepared considering possession,
valuation, and feasibility, and were affirmed as
compliant with Rule 131 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, and
Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
- Concurrent findings of fact, absent perversity
or procedural irregularity, are binding and not
subject to interference under Article 226, as per
St. of Jharkhand Vs Linde India Ltd. and
Chandrika Vs Sudama. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 15, 19,
21, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33)

B. Judicial Review - Scope Under Article
226 - Petitioner argued that the allocation of
plots was inequitable, allotting him smaller
portions of key plots and violating Rule 131's
requirement for compact and equitable division
- Held, the High Court's jurisdiction under
Article 226 is limited and does not extend to reevaluating concurrent findings of fact unless
they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or
result in manifest injustice - The courts below
provided
reasoned
orders
based
on
the
kurrafaat, spot-memo, and evidence, showing
no misdirection in law or procedural irregularity,
as supported by Abdul Razak Vs Mangesh
Rajaram Wagle and Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs
Nandlal Khodidas Barot. (Paras 15, 17, 18, 20,
21, 23, 24, 32, 33)

C. Partition Proceedings - Compliance
with
Statutory
Provisions
-
Petitioner
contended that the kurrafaat unfairly allocated
major portions of plot no. 756 to respondent no.
6
-
Held,
the
Sub
Divisional
Officer,
Commissioner, and Board of Revenue confirmed
the kurrafaat was prepared per Rule 131(1)(b)
and (d), ensuring compact plots and respecting
existing possession without fragmenting fields -
The allocation was equitable, with both parties
receiving equal shares, and the process involved
proper measurement and demarcation, as
evidenced by the spot-memo dated 23.05.2016,
per Gurvachan Kaur Vs Salikram. (Paras 6, 8,
13, 28, 30, 31)

D. Revenue Law - Role of Appellate Courts
- The first appellate court (Commissioner) and
second appellate court (Board of Revenue)
upheld the trial court's findings after detailed
examination of the kurrafaat and evidence -
Held, the first appellate court, as the final court
of fact, has the authority to re-evaluate
evidence de novo, and its affirmation of the trial
court's findings constitutes concurrent findings,
binding unless perverse, as per Santosh Hazari
Vs Purushottam Tiwari and Union Bank of India
1 All. Dayaram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1303
Vs Chandrakant Gordhandas Shah. (Paras 9, 10,
19, 20, 22, 28, 31)

E. Writ Jurisdiction - Non-Interference with
Reasoned Orders - Petitioner sought to
challenge
the
kurrafaat's
fairness,
alleging
procedural lapses - Held, the courts below
provided full opportunity for objections, considered
the petitioner's concerns, and passed reasoned
orders based on admissible evidence - No
manifest error, illegality, or perversity was found to
justify interference, and the petitioner's claim of
inequitable
allocation
was
unsupported
by
evidence of legal violation, as clarified by Gaya Din
Vs Hanuman Prasad. (Paras 7, 16, 28, 31, 32, 33)

Writ Petition Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concerned
to
decide
the
Restoration
application dated 30.01.2015 preferred by
the respondent no.2 namely Rajendra,
afresh on its merit in the light of the
observations
made
by
this
Court
hereinabove; expeditiously and preferably
within a period of six months from the date
of the receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1302
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI,
J.

Writ-B No. 2896 of 2023

Dayaram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Maurya, Sri Rituvendra
Singh Nagvanshi, Sri R.C. Singh ( Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Sri
Deepak Singh Yadav, Sri Sanjay Kumar
Mishra, Sri Sheo Ram Singh, Sri Sudhir
Kumar Shukla

A. Revenue Law - Partition of Holdings -
Concurrent Findings of Fact - Petitioner
challenged
the
orders
dated
19.07.2023,
31.05.2017,
and
13.05.2016,
alleging
inequitable allocation of shares in a partition suit
under Section 176/177 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Held,
the findings of the Sub Divisional Officer, upheld
by the Commissioner and Board of Revenue,
were based on the kurrafaat report dated
17.04.2016, prepared considering possession,
valuation, and feasibility, and were affirmed as
compliant with Rule 131 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, and
Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
- Concurrent findings of fact, absent perversity
or procedural irregularity, are binding and not
subject to interference under Article 226, as per
St. of Jharkhand Vs Linde India Ltd. and
Chandrika Vs Sudama. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 15, 19,
21, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33)

B. Judicial Review - Scope Under Article
226 - Petitioner argued that the allocation of
plots was inequitable, allotting him smaller
portions of key plots and violating Rule 131's
requirement for compact and equitable division
- Held, the High Court's jurisdiction under
Article 226 is limited and does not extend to reevaluating concurrent findings of fact unless
they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or
result in manifest injustice - The courts below
provided
reasoned
orders
based
on
the
kurrafaat, spot-memo, and evidence, showing
no misdirection in law or procedural irregularity,
as supported by Abdul Razak Vs Mangesh
Rajaram Wagle and Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs
Nandlal Khodidas Barot. (Paras 15, 17, 18, 20,
21, 23, 24, 32, 33)

C. Partition Proceedings - Compliance
with
Statutory
Provisions
-
Petitioner
contended that the kurrafaat unfairly allocated
major portions of plot no. 756 to respondent no.
6
-
Held,
the
Sub
Divisional
Officer,
Commissioner, and Board of Revenue confirmed
the kurrafaat was prepared per Rule 131(1)(b)
and (d), ensuring compact plots and respecting
existing possession without fragmenting fields -
The allocation was equitable, with both parties
receiving equal shares, and the process involved
proper measurement and demarcation, as
evidenced by the spot-memo dated 23.05.2016,
per Gurvachan Kaur Vs Salikram. (Paras 6, 8,
13, 28, 30, 31)

D. Revenue Law - Role of Appellate Courts
- The first appellate court (Commissioner) and
second appellate court (Board of Revenue)
upheld the trial court's findings after detailed
examination of the kurrafaat and evidence -
Held, the first appellate court, as the final court
of fact, has the authority to re-evaluate
evidence de novo, and its affirmation of the trial
court's findings constitutes concurrent findings,
binding unless perverse, as per Santosh Hazari
Vs Purushottam Tiwari and Union Bank of India
1 All. Dayaram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1303
Vs Chandrakant Gordhandas Shah. (Paras 9, 10,
19, 20, 22, 28, 31)

E. Writ Jurisdiction - Non-Interference with
Reasoned Orders - Petitioner sought to
challenge
the
kurrafaat's
fairness,
alleging
procedural lapses - Held, the courts below
provided full opportunity for objections, considered
the petitioner's concerns, and passed reasoned
orders based on admissible evidence - No
manifest error, illegality, or perversity was found to
justify interference, and the petitioner's claim of
inequitable
allocation
was
unsupported
by
evidence of legal violation, as clarified by Gaya Din
Vs Hanuman Prasad. (Paras 7, 16, 28, 31, 32, 33)

Writ Petition Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Jharkhand Vs Linde India Ltd., 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1660

2. Chandrika Vs Sudama, (2019) 5 SCC 790

3. Bansraj Vs Ram Naresh, (2020) 5 ADJ 10

4. St. of Raj. Vs Shiv Dayal, (2019) 8 SCC 637

5. Gurvachan Kaur Vs Salikram, (2010) 15 SCC
530

6. Santosh Hazari Vs Purushottam Tiwari,
(2001) 3 SCC 179

7. Abdul Razak Vs Mangesh Rajaram Wagle,
(2010) 2 SCC 432

8. Union Bank of India Vs Chandrakant
Gordhandas Shah, (1994) 6 SCC 271

9. Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs Nandlal Khodidas
Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706

10. Smt. Ram Dev Vs 8th Addl. District Judge,
Kanpur, 1999 (1) ARC 173

11. Gaya Din Vs Hanuman Prasad, 2001 (43)
ALR 226 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Shri
Rituvendra
Singh
Nagvanshi,
learned
counsel for the petitioner; Shri Shiv Ram
Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent no. 6; Shri Awadesh
Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents no. 1 to 4; Shri
Bhupendra
Kumar
Tripathi,
learned
counsel for the Gram Sabha- respondent
no. 5 and perused the pleadings available
on record.

2. With the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds
to finally decide the present writ petition at
the admission stage itself.

3. The relevant facts in nutshell that
are necessary for the better appreciation of
the case; as narrated by the petitioner in the
instant writ petition, are that the petitioner
and the contesting respondent no.6 are real
brothers and claimed half (1⁄2) share each in
the jointly possessed ancestral property /
holding
with
plot
nos.
756/0.247,
742/0.130,
758/0.570
and
760/0.117
situated at village Saraiharkhu, Pargana
Rari, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur.

4. The petitioner filed a partition Suit
under section 176 / 177 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 seeking division of the holdings,
in the Court of learned Sub Divisional
Officer, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur
(respondent no.4). The said suit was
registered as T2016143602908 (Dayaram
versus Bharat).

5. In the aforesaid Suit a preliminary
decree was passed on 08.03.2016 by the
learned Court of Sub Divisional Officer,
Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur, whereby
the claim of the petitioner and respondent
1304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no.6 to the half (1⁄2) share each, in the
property in suit was accepted / declared.
Accordingly, the Lekhpal concerned was
directed to prepare the Kurrafaat on the
basis of possession and documents.

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order
dated 08.03.2016, the Lekhpal concerned
submitted a detailed kurrafaat report on
17.04.2016 and thereafter his statement was
recorded on 05.05.2016. As per the said
kurrafaat dated 17.04.2016, plot no. 742 Sa
/ 0.0650 and plot no. 756 Sa / 0.2105 came
to be allocated / earmarked in favour of the
respondent no.6 while plot no. 742 Sa /
0.650, plot no. 756 Sa / 0.0365, 758 / 0.057
and plot no. 760 / 0.117 in favour of the
petitioner.

7. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid
kurrafaat preapred by the Lekphal, the
petitioner filed an objection on 10.05.2016,
before the learned Sub Divisional Officer
(respondent no. 4), inter alia praying for
cancellation of the said kurrafaat dated
17.04.2016 and for the preparation of a
fresh kurrafaat by other Lekhpal.

8. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer
(respondent no.4) taking into consideration
the objections raised by the petitioner and
the factual aspect of the case and vide order
dated 13.05.2016 confirmed the kurrafaat
dated 17.04.2016 and passed the final
decree. Thereafter, a spot-memo was
submitted on 23.05.2016 by the Revenue
Inspector, to the effect that the Revenue
Team along with the Police force, carried
out the measurement / demarcation on the
basis of the aforesaid kurrafaat dated
17.04.2016.

9. Assailing the aforesaid order dated
13.05.2016 passed by the learned Court of
Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent no.4),
the petitioner filed an Appeal, under
Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
before the Court of learned Commissioner,
Varanasi Division, Varanasi. The said
appeal having Appeal No. 351 of 2016 was
dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2017,
passed by the learned Court of Additional
Commissioner (1st), Varanasi Division,
Varanasi.

10. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred
a Second Appeal under Section 331 (4) of
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 before the learned
Board of Revenue, U.P., at Allahabad
(respondent no.2) challenging the aforesaid
orders dated 13.05.2016 and 31.05.2017.
The said Appeal was registered as Case No.
SA/1287/2017/Jaunpur (Computerised case
No. AL20171436001287) titled as Daya
Ram versus Bharat Kumar and others. The
learned Board of Revenue (respondent
no.2) admitted the aforesaid Second Appeal
and granted an interim relief in favour of
the petitioner vide order dated 26.04.2017.

11. The aforesaid Second Appeal was
also dismissed vide a detailed order dated
19.07.2023 passed by the learned Board of
Revenue (respondent no.2).

12. Being aggrieved by the said order
dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned
Board of Revenue (respondent no.2) in the
Second Appeal, the petitioner preferred the
instant writ petition, inter alia, praying for
the following reliefs:

"i. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
impugned
order
dated
19.7.2023
(Annexure No.11) passed by respondent
no.2 in Case No. S.A./1287/2017 /Jaunpur
Computerized
No.-AL20171436001287
1 All. Dayaram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1305
(Dayaram Vs. Bharat Kumar and others)
under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.
Act
1950,
order
dated
31.5.2017
(Annexure No.8) passed by Respondent
no.3 in Appeal No. 351 of 2016 (Dayaram
Vs. Bharat Kumar etc) under Section 331
of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950 and
order dated 13.5.2016 (Annexure No.7)
passed by Respondent no.4 in partition
suit
bearing
No.
T2016143602908
(Dayaram Vs. Bharat) under Section 176
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950, Arazi situate
in village Saraiharkhu Pargana Rari,
Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus interdicting the
respondent no.6 from interfering into
peaceful possession of the petitioners over
the property in dispute and creating third
party interest.

iii. issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
may
deem
fit
and
proper
in
the
circumstances of the case.

iv. award the cost of the present
writ petition to the petitioners."

13. The contention of Shri R.C.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the petitioner is that the entire
proceeding of division of holdings in the
instant case is based on the kurrafaat report
dated 17.04.2016, by means of which the
petitioner was allocated his share i.e half
(1⁄2) of the holding, in four plots, while the
rest half (1⁄2) of the holding being the share
of respondent no.6 has been adjusted in
only two plots. Further, the major part of
the plot no. 756 which lies in front of the
petitioner's house, has been allotted to the
respondent
no.6
and
that
only
an
insignificant and small part of the same has
been allotted to the petitioner. As such, this
allocation of the share being inequitable is
violative of Rules 131 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952 which provides that the portion
allotted to each party shall be as compact as
possible and no party shall be given all the
inferior or all the superior classes of land.

14. Per contra, Shri Shiv Ram Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
caveator/
respondent
no.
6,
by
refuting
the
contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner as baseless and without any
substance, submits that the partition of the
holdings in question has been made
perfectly on the basis of the valuation of
the land, feasibility and possession on the
spot. As such, the same is legal and
justified. Further, the objections raised by
the petitioner against the kurrafaat was duly
considered by the learned Sub Divisional
Officer (respondent no.4) and the revenue
team
prepared
the
spot-memo
after
measurements / demarcation on the spot on
23.05.2016 and, thereafter, the spot-memo
was submitted before the learned Sub
Divisional Officer (respondent no.4) in the
presence of the petitioners. It has also been
submitted on behalf of the respondent no.6
that the petitioner is in occupation of the
better part of the holding in question than
the answering respondent no.6 and as such
he wants to prolong the proceeding by
playing delaying tactics and does not want
the matter to be finally settled.

15. Shri Awadesh Kumar Patel,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-respondents no. 1 to 4 raised
preliminary
objection
regarding
the
maintainability of the present writ petition
by contending that the petitioner in the
present writ petition has basically disputed
the findings of fact which have been
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affirmed by the first and the second
appellate courts and as such the concurrent
findings of fact cannot be interfered by this
Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. In support of his contention, the
learned Standing Counsel has relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State
of
Jharkhand
and
others
versus
Linde India Limited and another reported
in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1660; Chandrika
(Dead) by LRS. versus Sudama (Dead)
Thr. LRS. and others reported in (2019) 5
SCC 790 and Bansraj versus Ram Naresh
and another, reported in (2020) 5 ADJ 10.

16. The learned Standing Counsel
further submitted that there is no infirmity
or irregularity in the impugned orders
passed by the learned trial court as well as
the learned appellate courts. Further, the
courts below, at all stages afforded full
opportunity of hearing to the parties and
decided the matter by passing a detailed
and reasoned orders, after taking into
consideration all the grounds pleaded by
the parties.

17. Having heard the rival contentions
raised by the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the material available
on record; the moot issue for consideration,
at the first instance, before this Court is that
as to whether in the present case, the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
three Revenue Courts below warrants any
interference by this Court in exercise of its
powers, qua, Writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

18. Before entering into the merits of
the case, it would be apt to consider the
legal context of "concurrent findings of
fact" and reiterate the law in relation to the
extent of interference by the Writ Courts in
concurrent findings of the fact under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Rajasthan versus Shiv
Dayal reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637 at
page 639 has succinctly described the
expression "concurrent findings of fact",
which is well known in the legal parlance,
in the following manner,

"15. It is a trite law that in order
to record any finding on the facts, the trial
court is required to appreciate the entire
evidence (oral and documentary) in the
light of the pleadings of the parties.
Similarly, it is also a trite law that the
appellate court also has the jurisdiction to
appreciate the evidence de novo while
hearing the first appeal and either affirm
the finding of the trial court or reverse it. If
the appellate court affirms the finding, it is
called
"concurrent
finding
of
fact"
whereas if the finding is reversed, it is
called "reversing finding.""

20. Further, it is also the settled legal
preposition that the first appellate court is
the final court of fact, as has been dealt
with in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Gurvachan Kaur and
others versus Salikram (Dead) through
LRS. reported in (2010) 15 SCC 530 and
Santosh
Hazari
versus
Purushottam
Tiwari (Deceased) by LRS. reported in
(2001) 3 SCC 179.

21.

Consequently,
it
can
be
affirmatively alluded that the concurrent
findings of fact are to be considered as
settled facts of the case and the High Court
should ordinarily restrain itself from
interfering with the concurrent findings of
fact. The said restrain is on a much higher
1 All. Dayaram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1307
footing in cases where the High Court is
not the appellate court, rather, it is
exercising its Writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In
this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Abdul Razak (D) through LRS.
and others versus Mangesh Rajaram
Wagle and others reported in (2010) 2
SCC 432 as reiterated in the case of State
of
Jharkhand
and
others
versus
Linde India Limited and another (Supra)
has held that the High Court in exercise of
its Writ jurisdiction is not an appellate
court against the findings recorded on
appreciation of facts and the evidence on
record. Further, in the case Chandrika
(Dead) by LRS. versus Sudama (Dead)
Thr. LRS. and others (Supra) the Hon'ble
Apex Court has been pleased to observe
that the concurrent findings of fact is not
only binding on the High Court but is also
binding upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
For ready reference, extract of paragraph
no. 12 of the aforesaid judgment in
extracted hereinbelow,

"12. In our considered opinion,
the finding impugned in this appeal being
concurrent finding of fact and was rightly
held by the High Court as binding on the
High Court in its writ jurisdiction, it is also
binding on this Court, calling for no
interference therein..."

22. It may also be elucidated that the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union
Bank
of
India
versus
Chandrakant
Gordhandas Shah reported in (1994) 6
SCC 271 at page 274 has briefly explained
the reason for non-interference with the
concurrent findings of fact by observing
that it is the trial court and the appellate
court which is entrusted with the duty of
recording the findings on questions of fact
and it is not proper for the Writ courts to
interfere with or disturb those findings. For
a ready reference, extract of paragraph no.
11of
the
said
judgment
is
quoted
hereinbelow,

"11. It is trite that if the trial
court and the appellate court, who are
entrusted with the duty of investigating into
questions of fact record concurrent findings
thereon on a proper discussion and
appreciation of the materials placed before
them, the High Court should not interfere
with or disturb those findings while sitting
in judgment over the same in its writ
jurisdiction..."

23. However, it would not be place to
discuss the another aspect that the High
Court still has the discretionary power to
interfere in the concurrent findings of fact
while exercising its powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, but the
discretion must be exercised on sound
judicial principles particularly, where the
concurrent findings of fact is perverse in
law in the sense that no reasonable person
properly instructed in law should have
come to such a finding or there is
misdirection in law or a view on fact has
been taken in the teeth of preponderance of
evidence or the finding is not based on any
material evidence or it has resulted in
manifest injustice. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Babubhai Muljibhai
Patel versus Nandlal
Khodidas
Barot,
reported in (1974) 2 SCC 706, at page 715,
has observed that,

"10. ... The High Court is not
deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution merely because in considering
the petitioner's right of relief, questions of
fact may fall to be determined. In a petition
under Article 226 the High Court has
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and
law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is no doubt
discretionary, but the discretion must be
exercised on sound judicial principles.
When the petition raises complex questions
of fact, which may for their determination
require oral evidence to be taken, and on
that account the High Court is of the view
that the dispute should not appropriately be
tried in a writ petition, the High Court may
decline to try a petition.... If, however, on
consideration
of
the
nature
of
the
controversy, the High Court decides ... that
it should go into a disputed question of fact
and the discretion exercised by the High
Court appears to be sound and in
conformity with judicial principles, this
Court would not interfere in appeal with
the order made by the High Court in this
respect."

24. Furthermore, in order to decide
whether a particular case requires the High
Court to enter into a disputed question of
fact
depends
upon
the
facts
and
circumstances of that case, as this ordinary
restrain on the interference on concurrent
findings of fact should not be put in a
routine and mechanical manner in the
system of administration of justice. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court by placing reliance
upon the judgment passed in the case of
Smt. Ram Dev versus 8th Addl. District
Judge, Kanpur reported in 1999 (1) ARC
173 has categorically held in the case of
Gurvachan Kaur (Supra) that,

"13. ... It is the duty of the Court
to look into the evidence if the justice so
requires and where material evidence has
been totally ignored and the finding of the
fact is based upon consideration of
evidence led by one party only, the Court
has power to set aside the finding of fact
recorded by the court below."

25. Further, for the purposes of
interfering in the concurrent findings of
fact, the question of perversity of an order
passed by an authority must be determined
by considering whether the said order is not
supported by the evidence brought on
record or it is against the law or it suffers
from vice of procedural irregularity, as has
been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the
case
of Gaya
Din
(dead)
thr.
L.Rs. versus Hanuman Prasad (dead) thr.
L.Rs. reported in 2001 (43) ALR 226 (SC).

26. In the instant case the findings
recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer
(respondent no.4) in respect of the shares
and also with regard to the allotment of
kurras, in favour of the parties, has been
upheld by the first appellate court, i.e., the
learned Court of Commissioner, Varanasi
(respondent no. 3) and the learned Board of
Revenue (respondent no.2) also concurred
with the same in Second Appeal.

27. In view of the settled legal
position on the subject of 'concurrent
findings of fact', it has become imperative
to determine as to whether the facts and
circumstances of the present case warrants
any interference by this Court in the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Sub Divisional Officer (respondent no.4) as
concurred by the Commissioner, Varanasi
(respondent no. 3) in Appeal No. 351 of
2016 and also by the Board of Revenue,
U.P. (respondent no.2) in Second Appeal
bearing Case No. SA/1287/2017/Jaunpur.

28 . From the perusal of the impugned
order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the
learned trial court, it is evident that the
Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent no.4)
approved the Kurrafaat and the coloured
map dated 17.04.2016 as being prepared on
the basis of possession and shares and, also
1 All. Dayaram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1309
recorded a categorical finding that an
approach road as a khadanja marg is
available to the parties. The first appellate
court,
i.e.,
the
Court of Additional
Commissioner (respondent no. 3) affirmed
the findings of the trial court after a
detailed discussion on the factual matrix of
the case and also the correctness of the
kurrafaat.

The extract of the relevant
paragraph of the findings returned by the
first Appellate Court while deciding the
Appeal is quoted below:

"--------यह तथ्य निनवावाद है नक
अप लाथी एवीं नवपक्ष दोिोीं सगे भाई है तथा
एक ह नपता क सींताि हैं। नियमािुसाि
प्रत्येक आिाज में दोिो भाईयोीं का समाि
अींि होता है, नजसका सींज्ञाि अवि न्यायालय
द्वािा प्रािक्तम्भक आदेि नदिाींक 08.03.2016
पारित किते समय नलया गया तथा फॉि हेतु
लेखपाल को निदेनित नकया है लेखपाल
द्वािा मौके पि कब्जा एवीं अींि का ध्याि
िखते हुए अप लाथी को चािोीं िम्बिोीं में तथा
नवपक्ष को दो िम्बिोीं में बिाबि अींि
निर्ाारित किते हुए फॉि बिाया गया।
लेखपाल द्वािा न्यायालय उप नजलानर्काि
में उपक्तथथत होकि बयाि तहि ि अींनकत
किाया गया है, नजसमें वाद , प्रनतवाद के
कब्जा दखल व मौका मुतानवक नहस्सा फॉि
बिाया जािा स्व काि नकया गया है। उसिे
आिाज िम्बि 756 को वाद , प्रनतवाद दोिोीं
के दिवाजे पि होिे का उल्लेख नकया है,
नजसमें पनश्चम अप लाथी तथा पूिब नवपक्ष
का मकाि होिा बताया है। मेड बिाकि
भाइयोीं द्वािा जोतिा-बोिा स्व काि नकया है।
अप लाथी िे अपि आपनि फॉि पि अवि
न्यायालय में दायि क थ , नजस पि अवि
न्यायालय िे सुिकि निस्तारित कि मौके एवीं
फॉि का अध्ययि कि आलोच्यादेि पारित
नकया
है
तथा
िाजस्व
निि क्षक
िे
23.05.2016 को िाजस्व ि म एवीं पुनलस बल
के साथ फॉि के अिुसाि िाप कि/नचक्तन्हत
कि स्पाि मेमो क प्रनत अवि न्यायालय में
प्रस्तुत नकया है, नजसमें नकस हस्तक्षेप क
आवश्यकता िह ीं है।"

29. The Second Appellate Court, i.e.,
the learned Board of Revenue (respondent
no.2) decided the Second Appeal after
framing the following substantial question
of law.

"क्या बिवािा वाद में उिि प्रदेि
िाजस्व सींनहता 2006 क नियमावल के
सुसींगत प्रानवर्ािोीं का ध्याि िखा गया है?"

30. The learned Board of Revenue
(respondent no.2) while deciding the
Second Appeal has dealt with the above
quoted question of law formulated as
substantial question in detail and has held
that the provisions of Section 131(1) have
been duly followed in the division of
holdings in the present case. It has also
categorically recorded a finding that the
Courts below while deciding the suit for
division
of
holdings
under
Section
176/177 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950, have
decided the same in terms the relevant
provisions of law.

31. The learned Board of Revenue
(respondent
no.2)
after
taking
into
consideration the factual aspect of the
case in detail and deciding the substantial
question of law as formulated in the case,
dismissed the said appeal by a detailed
judgment and order dated 19.07.2023.
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The relevant paragraphs of the
findings returned by the Second Appellate
Court while deciding the said second
appeal is quoted below:

" 6. मेिे द्वािा आलोच्य आदेि
नदिाींक 31.05.2017 व 13.05.2016 का
गहितापूवाक परिि लि नकया गया तथा
पत्रावल पि उपलब्ध अन्य अनभलेखोीं का भ
गहितापूवाक परिि लि नकया गया नजसमें
यह परिलनक्षत होता है नक वतामाि नद्वत य
अप लकताा दयािाम क ओि से पि क्षण
न्यायालय के समक्ष भाित कुमाि के साथ
उिि प्रदेि सिकाि व गाींव सभा को
पक्षकाि कायम कि बींिवािा वाद योनजत
नकया गया नजसमें वाद का 1⁄2 अींि तथा
प्रनतवाद का 1⁄2 अींि कायम किते हुये वाद
तथा प्रनतवाद का अलग-अलग फाि
मुतानबक नहस्सा कायम नकये जािे का
याचिा क गई। उि वाद में पि क्षण
न्यायालय द्वाि प्रािक्तम्भक आदेि नदिाींक
08.03.2016 पारित कि पक्षोीं का अींि
मुतानबक दावा घोनर्त कििे के उपिान्त
फाि बिािे हेतु सम्बक्तन्धत लेखपाल को
निदेनित नकया गया नजसके अिुक्रम में
लेखपाल द्वािा नचट्ठ बींिवािा मय िींगाभेद
िक्शा नदिाींक 17.4.2016 को प्रस्तुत नकया
गया। पि क्षण न्यायालय द्वािा उि कुिों पि
आपनि प्राप्त कि नदिाींक 05.05.2016 को
लेखपाल का बयाि किाया गया तथा वाद
दयािाम द्वािा लेखपाल द्वािा यह स्व काि
नकया गया नक वादग्रस्त आिानजयात में से 3
िम्बिाि आबाद के पास है व एक िम्बि दूि
है नजसमें वाद व प्रनतवाद का मौके पि
कब्जा दखल को देखकि उसके अिुसाि
फाि/िींगाभेद भू-नचत्र तैयाि नकया गया है।
पि क्षण न्यायालय द्वािा वाद क आपनि
सींज्ञानित कि उि आपनि को स्व काि
नकये जािे योग्य ि पाते हुये लेखपाल द्वािा
प्रस्तुत अप ल में अवि अप ल य न्यायालय
द्वािा पि क्षण न्यायालय के आदेि को पुष्ट्
किते हुये पारित निणाय नदिाींक 31.05.2017
के माध्यम से पि क्षण न्यायालय द्वािा पारित
नडक्र को पुष्ट् नकया गया नजससे क्षुब्ध होकि
वाद दयािाम द्वािा वतामाि नद्वत य अप ल
परिर्द न्यायालय के समक्ष योनजत क गई
है।

7. उि तथ्यात्मक पृष्ठभूनम का
यनद निनमात सािभूत नवनर्क प्रश्न के निर्ाािण
हेतु नवनर्क आींकलि नकया जाये तो यह
परिलनक्षत होता है नक मूल वाद र्ािा 176
जम ींदाि नविाि के अन्तगात योनजत नकया
गया था नजसमें कुिो निनमात कििे हेतु
सम्बक्तन्धत नियमावल के नियम 131 के उपनियम1(ब) में इस आिय के स्पष्ट् निदेि
नदये गये हैं नक जहाीं तक सींभव हो प्रत्येक
पक्ष को समेनकत कुिाा प्रदि नकया जािा
चानहये तथा कुिाा निनमात किते समय
पक्षकािोीं के पूवा से चले आ िहे कब्जे का
ध्याि िखिा चानहये तथा यथा सींभव उिके
पूवा से चले आ िहे कब्जे वाले थथल को
सक्तिनलत किते हुये कुिाा निनमात नकया
जािा चानहये। नियम 131(1) के उपनियम
(द) में यह स्पष्ट् रूप से प्रानवर्ानित है नक
जहाीं तक सींभव हो वतामाि खेत को नवभि
िह ीं नकया जायेगा। स्व कृत रूप से
जम ींदाि नविाि अनर्नियम नििनसत हो
चुका है औि उि के साथ-साथ जम ींदाि
नविाि नियमावल भ िाजस्व सींनहता
नियमावल 2016 से प्रनतथथानपत क जा
चुक है। िाजस्व सींनहता नियमावल में
नवभाजि वाद के अन्तगात कुिे निनमात कििे
1 All. Committee of Management, The Meerut Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Meerut
 & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1311
के मािदण्ड नियम 109 के उपनियम 5 में
प्रानवर्ानित हैं नजसमें कमोवेि नियम
131(1) के उपनियम (ब) व (द) को
यथास्वरूप समानहत नकया गया है। अतः
यह स्पष्ट् है नक बींिवािा वाद में कुिाा निनमात
किते समय यथा सम्भव यह प्रयास नकया
जािा चानहये नक वादग्रस्त सम्पनि के छोिे-
छोिे िुकडोीं के कुिे ि बिाये जायें औि
पक्षकािोीं को सींगनठत कुिाा प्रदि नकया जाये
नजसमें इस बात का ध्याि िखा जािा
आवश्यक है नक सभ पक्षकािोीं को समाि
प्रकाि क भूनम उिके अींिािुरूप प्राप्त हो
सके।

8. वतामाि प्रकिण में अवि
अप ल य न्यायालय में इस आिय का स्पष्ट्
तथ्यात्मक निष्कर्ा अींनकत नकया है नक
लेखपाल द्वािा अपिे प्रनतपि क्षण के दौिाि
यह बताया गया नक 3 िम्बिाि अथाात गािा
सींख्या 756,758 व 760 आबाद से सिे
िम्बिाि हैं, नजसमें से गािा सींख्या 758 व
760 पूणातः वाद को तथा 758 के अींि पि
वाद को कुिाा प्रदि नकया गया है जबनक
प्रनतवाद को उस गािा सींख्या 758 के िेर्
िकबे पि वाद के समतुल्य िकबे का कुिाा
प्रदि नकया गया है। पि क्षण न्यायालय तथा
अवि अप ल य न्यायालय द्वािा उपिोि
िम्बिािोीं को आबाद से सिा होिे का
तथ्यात्मक निष्कर्ा अींनकत नकया गया है।
वह ीं गािा सींख्या 742 को कुछ दूि पि क्तथथत
होिा बताया गया है। उि गािा सींख्या 742
में दोिो पक्षोीं को 0.0650 है०-0.0650 है० का
समाि िकबा कुिे के माध्यम से उपलब्ध
किाया गया है। अतः सृनजत सािभूत नवनर्क
प्रश्न के सम्बन्ध में इस न्यायालय का यह दृढ
मत है नक अवि न्यायालयोीं द्वािा बींिवािा
वाद निणीत किते समय सुसींगत प्रानवर्ािोीं
का अिुपाल सुनिनश्चत नकया गया है। प्रकिण
में सनजत नकया गया सािभूत नवनर्क प्रश्न
तदिुसाि निस्तारित नकया जाता है।"

32. In view of all that is discussed
hereinabove, the findings recorded by all
the three Revenue Courts below are
concurrent, based on admissible evidence
and reasoning. There is no perversity in the
findings recorded by the courts below.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the Courts
below have ignored the law in arriving at
their findings.

33 . Accordingly, this Court finds no
manifest error of law, perversity, illegality
or procedural irregularity in the impugned
orders and does not find any cogent reason
that warrants interference by this Court
with the concurrent findings recorded by
the three Revenue Courts below while
passing the impugned orders.

34. The writ petition is liable to be
dismissed being devoid of merit and is
hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,
ACTING C.J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ-C No. 18413 of 2023

Committee of Management, The Meerut
Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Meerut & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents