Ram Bahal & Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Background
Three plots in a village near Azamgarh were recorded in the basic-year records in the names of the respondents, while the appellants were in possession and claimed rights through that possession. The Consolidation Officer ruled for the respondents, the Settlement Officer reversed that, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation restored the original order. The High Court refused to interfere, and the appellants came to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and left the parties to bear their own costs. The Court held that the Deputy Director had not re-weighed the evidence afresh; he had properly examined which Khasra and Khatauni entries were genuine and excluded the ones with over-writings or unwarranted entries. Under Article 136, the Supreme Court will not re-appreciate factual findings unless they raise a serious question of law or are plainly unacceptable, and no such case was shown. The High Court's decision therefore did not need interference.
Lesson Learnt
Land records and possession are both important, but the Supreme Court will not usually re-examine factual findings, so the strongest evidence has to be presented in the early stages. Errors in revenue entries can be challenged, but the challenge must be based on a clear error in the record.