1. Heard Sri Ravi Pratap, for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Mishra, for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-2) dated 7.2.2013, passed in proceeding u/s 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the).

2. The dispute relates to Chak No. 67 (area 2-11-17 bigha) of village Belghat tappa Mor, pargana Basti Pashchim, district Basti, which was recorded in the name of Jag Mohan son of Algoo, during consolidation. Jag Mohan died on 10.7.1986. The petitioner filed an application (registered as Case No. 747) u/s 12 of the, for mutating her name, as an heir of Jag Mohan, being his sister as Jag Mohan died issue less. Pramod Kumar filed another application (registered as Case No. 1220) u/s 12 of the, for mutating his name, as an heir of Jag Mohan. Pramod Kumar is now not contesting the matter. These cases were referred by Assistant Consolidation Officer, to Consolidation Officer for decision on merit.

3. In the meantime Babu Ram son of Kalpu Bhooj and Kanhi son of Balihari filed another application (registered as Case No. 93/772) dated 12.9.1986, for mutating their names, over the land in dispute, on the basis of sale-deed dated 2.8.1986, allegedly executed by Jag Mohan in their favour before another Assistant Consolidation Officer, namely Sri Markandey Dubey, although he had no jurisdiction for the village Belghat. On the basis of a fabricated compromise, Sri Markandey Dubey, Assistant Consolidation Officer, by order dated 17.10.1986 directed for mutating the names of Babu Ram son of Kalpu Bhooj (4/5 share) and Kanhi son of Balihari (1/5 share), over the land in dispute.

4. On coming to know about the aforesaid order, Shiv Patta filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 795) from the aforesaid order. It appears that when Babu Ram received notice of the appeal, he also filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 2123/1454) from the order dated 17.10.1986. In this appeal, he claimed himself as the son of Jag Mohan and stated that sale-deed dated 2.8.1986, allegedly executed by Jag Mohan, was a fabricated document and was procured without prior permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 22.12.1987 held that the mutation application dated 12.9.1986 and the Compromise filed in this mutation case contained signatures of Babu Ram. These signatures fully tally with the signature of Babu Ram on the memorandum of appeal. As such Babu Ram, himself filed the mutation application, on the basis of the alleged sale-deed dated 2.8.1986, in which his parentage has been written as Kalpu Bhooj. Babu Ram could not prove that he was son of Jag Mohan. Babu Ram had knowledge of the order dated 17.10.1986 from very beginning as such there was no ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, by Babu Ram. Sri Markandey Dubey, Assistant Consolidation Officer, had no jurisdiction in respect of village Belghat. The compromise filed before him was a fabricated document. The alleged sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 was obtained without prior permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation. Order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.10.1986 was without jurisdiction and illegal. On these findings the appeal of the petitioner was allowed and appeal of Babu Ram was dismissed. The order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.10.1986 was set aside and the matter was referred to Consolidation Officer for trial and fresh decision on merit. Babu Ram and Kanhi filed a revision against the order dated 22.12.1987, which was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the matter was remanded to Settlement Officer Consolidation for fresh decision in the appeal.

5. After remand, Settlement Officer Consolidation, again by order dated 8.4.1994 held that the mutation application dated 12.9.1986 and the compromise filed in this mutation case contained signatures of Babu Ram. These signatures fully tally with the signature of Babu Ram on the memorandum of appeal. As such Babu Ram, himself filed the mutation application, on the basis of the alleged sale-deed dated 2.8.1986, in which his parentage has been written as Kalpu Bhooj. Babu Ram could not prove that he was son of Jag Mohan. Sub-Registrar made endorsement on the sale-deed that sale consideration was not paid before him. Jag Mohan was unable to move and was brought in his office in lap. Babu Ram, himself denied execution of sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 by jag Mohan. As such execution of the sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 by Jag Mohan has not been proved. On these findings, appeal of the petitioner was allowed and appeal of Babu Ram was dismissed. The order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.10.1986 was set aside and the matter was referred to Consolidation Officer for trial and fresh decision on merit. Babu Ram filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 780/857/1046/1326/1990) from the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 27.11.1998. During pendency of the revision Babu Ram executed a sale-deed dated 8.9.1994 in favour of Badri and others (respondents-2 to 4), in respect of his alleged 4/5 share in the land in dispute.

6. Badri and others (respondents-2 to 4) filed an application before Consolidation Officer for impleading them as parties, which was rejected by Consolidation Officer by order dated 3.5.2000. Their revision was also dismissed by order dated 27.6.2000. They filed a writ petition (registered as Writ-B No. 32603 of 2000), which was allowed by order dated 6.5.2005 and the Consolidation Officer was directed to implead them and give opportunity of hearing to them. Thereafter they were impleaded before Consolidation Officer and given opportunity of evidence and hearing.

7. The matter was heard by Consolidation Officer (Final Record), Basti, who by order dated 9.4.2000 held that Ram Chandra Mishra, the witness of the respondents in his statement admitted that Shiv Patta was the sister of Jag Mohan. In the extract of Pariwar Register, also name of Shiv Patta was mentioned as daughter of Algoo. From the evidence of the witnesses it was proved that Jag Mohan died issue less. Shiv Patta was therefore nearest heir of Jag Mohan. Babu Ram himself denied the execution of sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 by Jag Mohan and stated that this sale-deed was a forged document. From the Pariwar Register it was proved that Jag Mohan died on 10.7.1986 as such execution of the sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 by him was not possible. As Babu Ram was not the owner of the land in dispute as such respondents-2 to 4 would not get any title over the land in dispute, on the basis of sale-deed dated 6.9.1994, executed by Babu Ram in their favour. On these findings, the Consolidation Officer by order dated 9.4.2008 directed for recording the name of the petitioner as heir of Jag Mohan and dismissed other objections.

8. Respondents-2 to 5 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 913), from the order dated 9.4.2008. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Basti, who by dated 13.6.2008 upheld the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. Respondents-2 to 5 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 170) from the aforesaid orders. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1-A), who by order dated 7.2.2013, held that the Courts below have not considered the evidence on record. Shiv Patta did not challenge the sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 during lifetime of Jag Mohan the extract of Pariwar Register was not proved by any witness. As Jag Mohan had already sold the property in dispute as such Shiv Patta would not inherit anything. As Jag Mohan was unmarried as such it is not proved that Shiv Patta was his daughter/sister. On these findings the revision was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer dated 9.4.2008 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 13.6.2008 were set aside. The order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.10.1986 was re-instated. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

9. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that Shiv Patta in her statement has stated that she was daughter of Algoo and sister of Jag Mohan. Her statement was fully corroborated by the extract of Pariwar Register. Ram Chandra Mishra, the witness of the respondents, in his statement has admitted that Shiv Patta was the sister of Jag Mohan. The findings of facts recorded by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation that Shiv Patta was sister of Jag Mohan was based upon evidence on record. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally held that entries in Pariwar Register was not proved by any official. Pariwar Register is maintained in due discharge of official duty under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970 and is public document and its certified copy was admissible in evidence. Date of death of Jag Mohan mentioned in it was also recorded in discharge of statutory duty under the Registration of the Birth and Deaths Act, 1969. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally failed to notice that Jag Mohan died on 10.7.1986 while the sale-deed was executed on 2.8.1986. Babu Ram, himself, in his appeal admitted that sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 was executed by some imposter. In these circumstances, Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation held that sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 was a fabricated document. The concurrent findings of two Courts below have been illegally reversed by a cryptic order without considering the evidence on record and is liable to be set aside.

10. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that entries made in the Pariwar Register were not proved by any public servant as such there is no presumption relating to correctness of the entries made in the Pariwar Register. A perusal of Pariwar Register shows that various entries, made in it, are incorrect, inasmuch as name of mother of Jag Mohan was noted as Patti and name of wife of Jag Mohan was also noted as Patti. Although Shiv Patta, in her statement has stated that the name of her mother was Sukhana. Date of birth of Patti was noted as 1914 and date of birth of Jag Mohan was noted as 1920, which was an impossibility. In these circumstances, the entries of the Pariwar Register have been rightly ignored by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Shiv Patta did not examine any independent witness to prove that she was sister of Jag Mohan. Shiv Patta had form a gang to grab the properties of the persons, who had no heirs. A F.I.R. was lodged against her and her son by Ganga Ram at P.S. Harraiya district Basti, for making fake documents, for grabbing the properties. Execution of the sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 by Jag Mohan was proved by the marginal witnesses Shyam Lal and Ram Chandra Mishra. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Radha Krishna Singh and Others, in which it has been held that admissibility of a document in evidence has nothing to do with the probative value of the document. Judgment of this Court in Ram Kripal @ Chirkut and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, in which it has been held that an admission is not conclusive and the parties can show that it is not true. Judgment of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh and Others, in which it has been held that when the issue raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant or neglecting to take into account of relevant factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision making process includes examination as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors. He submits that in the circumstance that the Shiv Patta could not prove that she was sister of Jag Mohan and the respondents proved that Jag Mohan executed the sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 in their favour, Deputy Director of Consolidation has not committed any illegality in directing for recording the names of the respondents on the basis of sale-deed executed by Jag Mohan. Although judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation is a short judgment but it is based upon the evidence on record and the findings do not vitiates under the law. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that it is a cryptic order. It does not refer any evidence on record nor give any reason for discarding the evidence of the petitioner or accepting the evidence of the respondent. On three questions i.e. (i) Shiv Patta did not challenge the sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 during lifetime of Jag Mohan, (ii) Pariwar Register was not proved by public servant and (iii) Shiv Patta cannot be given any right against registered sale-deed, he allowed the revision. If a sale-deed was executed by any imposter of Jag Mohan, Shiv Patta was not obliged to challenge it in a separate suit. Such a sale-deed was a void document and can be ignored by the consolidation authorities.

12. So far as the arguments that as Public Servant was not examined as such Pariwar Register was not admissible in evidence is concerned, Pariwar Register is maintained in discharge of statutory duties under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970. Similarly date of death are maintained in discharge of statutory duty under Registration of the Birth and Deaths Act, 1969 and it is a public document within the meaning of section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and its certified copy was admissible in evidence u/s 77 of the Evidence Act and carry presumption of the correctness u/s 79 of the. Deputy Director of Consolidation committed illegality in ignoring the Pariwar Register on the ground that it was not proved by any Public Servant. In the absence of any evidence to prove that it was incorrect, its correctness is liable to be presumed u/s 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

13. Statement of Shiv Patta for proving her relation with Jag Mohan was admissible in evidence u/s 50 of the Evidence Act. It was corroborated with the extract of Pariwar Register. Ram Chandra Mishra, who was an independent witness of the village and was examined by the respondents admitted that Shiv Patta was the daughter of Algoo and sister of Jag Mohan. Section 59 of the Evidence Act, 1872, provides that all facts, except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence. An admission comes in three ways, i.e. the admissions which are admissible under sections 18 to 30 of the Evidence Act, admission in pleadings and admission in oral evidence of the witness in the Court. The admission of the categories falling under sections 18 to 30 of the Evidence Act are required to be proved according to the provisions enumerated therein. However admission of the pleadings and the witnesses can be directly relied upon as held by Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India and Others, and Karam Kapahi and Others Vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Another, . Thus any fact, which has come in the oral evidence of the witnesses examined before the Court can be relied upon/corroborated to record a finding. The evidence of Shiv Patta that she was sister of Jag Mohan has been admitted by the witness of the respondents, the Consolidation Officer has not committed any illegality in holdings that Shiv Patta was the sister of Jag Mohan. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not given any reason to ignore these evidence on record.

14. Due execution of the sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 by Jag Mohan was not found to be proved by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation for the reason that Babu Ram himself denied the execution of sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 by Jag Mohan and stated that this sale-deed was a forged document; from the Pariwar Register, it was proved that Jag Mohan died on 10.7.1986 as such execution of the sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 by him was not possible. A part from it Settlement Officer Consolidation also take notice of the endorsement of Sub-Registrar that sale consideration was not passed at the time of execution of the sale-deed and executant was not in fit and healthy condition. The alleged sale-deed dated 2.8.1986 was obtained without prior permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation. These are valid reasons. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not given any reason to set aside the findings of the two Courts below.

15. Deputy Director of Consolidation mechanically re-instated the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.10.1986 although Sri Markandey Dubey, Assistant Consolidation Officer, who had passed the order dated 17.10.1986, had no jurisdiction in respect of village Belghat. The compromise filed before him was a fabricated document. Order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.10.1986 was set aside and the order had become final. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-2) dated 7.2.2013 is set aside and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 9.4.2008 is reinstated.