TMI Blog1975 (11) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1856 (hereinafter called the Rules). 3. On 18.9.1961, the Special Collector excluded the entire area of Respondent 5 in the revenue estate of village Dosanjh Kalan from the surplus pool. This excluded area included the aforesaid 13 standard acres and 111/2 units that had been allotted to the appellants. The Collector allowed this area to Jagga (Respondent 6) and his brother, Meet Singh, as their permissible area on the ground that they were tenants of this land on 15.4.1953. 4. Aggrieved, the appellants carried an appeal to the Commissioner (Respondent 3), contending inter alia that Jagga and Meet Singh were not tenants of this land on the crucial date i.e. 15.4.1953. The Commissioner dismissed this appeal. A revision preferred by the appellants before the Financial Commissioner met the same fate on 25.1.1963. To impugn these orders of the Special Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, the appellants filed a writ petition (No. 173 of 1963) in the High Court. The petition was accepted by a teamed Jadge Shamsher Bahadur J.) who set aside those orders and remanded the case to the Special Collector with the direction that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 965, rejected the pleas taken by the appellants and excluded the area in dispute, admeasuring 13 standard acres and 11/2 units, from the surplus area of the landowners and held it as permissible area of Respondent 6 (Jagga) and his brother, Meet Singh. 7. Against this order, of the Special Collector, the appellants appealed to the Commissioner who by an order, dated 25-5-1965, dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the Special Collector. The appellants moved the Financial Commissioner in revision under Section 24 of the Act. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the Revision on 31.13.1966 and affirmed the orders of the Special Collector and the Commissioner. A review petition filed by the appellants was also rejected by Financial Commissioner on 25.11.1966. 8. The appellants then on 13.12.1966, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for the issuarance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the orders of Respondents 2 to 4. A learned single Judge (Tek Chand J) by the judgment, dated 14.9.1967, dismissed the petition and upheld the orders passed by Respondents 2 to 4. A letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.4.1953 they were tenants of this land. 10. On the other hand, Shri Hardyal Hardy, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in proceedings under Articles 226/227, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere even with an erroneous finding of fact, however grave the error may be. The Collector's order, it is maintained, does not suffer even from an error of fact; that there was ample evidence on the record to show that on 15.4.1953, Jagga's father. Rattan Singh was a tenant of this land. Counsel contends that the mere reference to some irrelevant matters by the Commissioner, did not affect the result of the appeal before him because he had, in the penultimate paragraph of his order, considered the appellant 'contention that Jagga was not an old tenant, and as such, the area under his tenancy could not be left out of the surplus pool. This contention, it is emphasised was negatived by the Commissioner after examining the record. It is further submitted that the Financial Commissioner considered the point in issue and after going through the evidence, fully affirmed the finding of the Special Collector that in the year 1952-53, Rattan Singh son of Isher Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aling with the contentions convassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court in writ proceedings under Article 226. It is well-settled that Certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts of tribunals. A writ of Certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra) this limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. 13 In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of Certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... landowner as well as the tenants as on 15.4.1953. Accordingly, the Collector put the land in dispute in the permissible area of the tenant, Rattan Singh s/o Isher Singh, and excluded it from the surplus area of the landowner. Thus the order of the Collector did not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction. 17. The Contention that some evidence was allowed to be tendered at the back of the appellant, does not appear to be tenable. According to Mr. Garg, the evidence which was let in this manner, was a copy of the Khatauni, and the examination of the Patwari after the case had been heard and reserved for orders. There is no reference to this Khatauni in the Order of the Special Collector which is not based on it. The Patwari was obviously examined in the presence of the parties or their Counsel. Indeed, he is said to have been cross-examined by parties including the appellants. This belated examination of the Patwari did not prejudice the appellants or any other party. 18. It is true that the Commissioner at the outset misconceived the real point in issue and wrongly assumed that the appellants were claiming as protected tenants. But from a reading of his order as a who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
