# KHAZAN SINGH & ORS v. HUKAM SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 636
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-09-21
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1643 of 1968
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/khazan-singh-ors-v-hukam-singh-ors-6971
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A
636
KHAZAN SINGH & ORS.
v.
HUKAM SINGH & ORS.
September 21, 1976
[H. R. KHANNA, N. L. UNTWALTA AND JASWANT SINGH, Jll
B
Writ iurisdiction-High Courts cannot i11terfere with a /i11di11g of fact based
c
D
E
F
G
H
11pon the relevatzt circ1unsta11ces and
~vhen it is not shown to he perrerse--
Co11stit11rio11 of /11dia, Article 226.
The appellants raised an obje:tion before the consolidation authoritks clai·ming joint tenancy with the respondents in respect of khatas 150, 369 and 391,
which was rejected except in respect of khaia 1 50.
The respondents filed an
appeal against the orders relating to khata 150.
The appellants filed crossappeals in respect of khata 369 and 391 and cross objection in respect of khata
no. 150.
The Settlement Officer rejected the cross appeals as time barred and
allowed the respondents' appeal holding that the appellants were not joint tenants
in khata No. 150.
Since the revision before the Deputy Director of C011'olidation failed, the aiμpel!ants filed a wtit petition for a writ of ceniorari. which
was dismissed in limine.
Dismissiug the appeal by certificate, the Court,
HELD : The position in law is clear that the High Court in a writ petition
cannot interfere with a finding of fact as long as that finding is based upon
the relevant circumstances and is not shown to be perverse.
Jn the instant case,
the 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 finding was not also interfered with in revision and the same cannot be
interfered with in: a writ petition. [637F-G]

## Text

A
636
KHAZAN SINGH & ORS.
v.
HUKAM SINGH & ORS.
September 21, 1976
[H. R. KHANNA, N. L. UNTWALTA AND JASWANT SINGH, Jll
B
Writ iurisdiction-High Courts cannot i11terfere with a /i11di11g of fact based
c
D
E
F
G
H
11pon the relevatzt circ1unsta11ces and
~vhen it is not shown to he perrerse--
Co11stit11rio11 of /11dia, Article 226.
The appellants raised an obje:tion before the consolidation authoritks clai·ming joint tenancy with the respondents in respect of khatas 150, 369 and 391,
which was rejected except in respect of khaia 1 50.
The respondents filed an
appeal against the orders relating to khata 150.
The appellants filed crossappeals in respect of khata 369 and 391 and cross objection in respect of khata
no. 150.
The Settlement Officer rejected the cross appeals as time barred and
allowed the respondents' appeal holding that the appellants were not joint tenants
in khata No. 150.
Since the revision before the Deputy Director of C011'olidation failed, the aiμpel!ants filed a wtit petition for a writ of ceniorari. which
was dismissed in limine.
Dismissiug the appeal by certificate, the Court,
HELD : The position in law is clear that the High Court in a writ petition
cannot interfere with a finding of fact as long as that finding is based upon
the relevant circumstances and is not shown to be perverse.
Jn the instant case,
the 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 finding was not also interfered with in revision and the same cannot be
interfered with in: a writ petition. [637F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No.
1643
of
1968.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19-8-1965 of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Misc.
Writ No. 5475 /64).
A. K. Sen and E. C. Agarwala, fol! the appellants
Mis. J. P. Goyal & Pal Singh, for respondents Nos. 1-7.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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.
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
+ . '
KHAZAN SINGH v. HUKAM SINGH (Khanna, J.)
63 7
.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.
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.
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.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
As a result of the above, thd appeal fails and is dismissed, but in
H
the circumstances. with no order as to costs.
·
S.R.
Appeal dismissed.