Petitioner challenged the dismissal of revision petitions regarding mutation of agricultural land. The High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to re-appreciating evidence or interfering with findings of fact, dismissing the petition.
Writ of certiorari dismissed; no interference with findings of fact allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 1939 of 2014.
Date of decision: 2.5.2014.
Radha Devi ….. Petitioner.
Vs.
State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr.M.A. Khan, Mr.V.S. Chauhan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Addl. Advocate Generals for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 to 11.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral):
The petitioner has claimed the following relief(s):-
(a) That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.9.2013 whereby the revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed;
______________________________________________________ Whether reporters of local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes_
2. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 is a nonagriculturist, who under the garb of setting up a cement plant has purchased land in violation of Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and thereafter cleverly applied for change of user of the land without obtaining fresh permission. It is further claimed that petitioner, in fact, is in possession of the land which was given to her in lieu of maintenance.
3. Vide mutation No. 1026 land comprised in khasra Nos. 75,76, 78, 84, 86 and 88 Kita (6) measuring 30-8 bighas to the extent of 1/9th share, measuring 3-7 bighas owned by Sh. Ram Swaroop husband of the petitioner was sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 4 on the basis of sale deed No. 485 dated 21.12.1992. Similarly, vide mutation No. 1027, land comprised in khasra Nos. 80, 81, 85 and 89, kita (4) measuring 22-6 bighas to the extent of 1/9th share measuring 2-9 bighas of Sh. Ram Swaroop was sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 4 on the basis of registered sale deed No. 486 dated 21.12.1992.
4. These mutations were initially challenged in appeal in the court of Sub Divisional Collector, Arki, who vide his order dated 29.7.2004 dismissed the same, by recording the following reasons:-
“I have heard the arguments put forth by the Ld. Counsels and gone through the records of lower court. Revenue Officer has given sufficient time to the parties to adduce evidence and produce relevant documents and has perused the sale deeds minutely as well as permission letter No. 2(F)(10) 96/92 dated
Dec, 92 issued by joint Secretary Rev. H.P. Govt. qua the land in question. Thereafter he has attested the mutation. Hence, I find no point to interfere with the order passed by him with regard to attestation of mutation No. 1027 dated 22.8.03. The appeal is rejected a copy of the order be placed on the file of lower court. Case file be consigned to the G.R.R. Arki after due completion.”
5. Thereafter revision petition(s) were preferred before the Commissioner, Shimla, which came to be dismissed on 26.4.2013. But surprisingly the said order has not been placed on record. Against the order of the Commissioner the petitioner preferred revision petition(s) before the Financial Commissioner, who vide his order dated 30.9.2013 has been pleased to dismiss the revision petitions. The reasons recorded by the Financial Commissioner for dismissal of the revision petitions, are as follows:-
“9. The main grounds taken in the revision petitions are the same as submitted before the two courts below. In so far as the objection of the petitioners that the A.C. IInd Grade, has attested the mutation after a period of 11 years even though the possession has not changed, the observations made by the learned Commissioner that the original owner had himself admitted having received the consideration amount and delivered possession to the respondent in the sale deeds itself, appears to be correct. In view of his own admissions in the sale deeds, the owner Sh. Ram Swaroop, at the time of attesting mutations can not resile from recitals made in the registered documents.
Further, the observations of the learned Commissioner, that mutation does not confer any new right on the purchaser about title of the land but only recognises the right acquired due to execution of sale deeds and that mutation are meant to update the revenue records, is also based on the settled principles of law. As such, the objection of the petitioner is not tenable and has been rightly rejected by the courts below.
10. It is also evident from the record that the respondent had purchased the land in question with prior approval of the State Government, as per the requirement of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act. It is another matter that the respondent could not put the land to use within the stipulated period for which the permission was granted to her. For this, she has attributed various reasons for her failure to install the cement plant/ industry, such as the project was not found viable and later on she had to decline the loan of H.P.F.C. etc. Further, the respondent has also contended that her request to change the use of land from cement plant to construction of resort has been considered by the State Government and for that purpose ‘Essentialty Certificate’ has also been issued in her favour for setting up a resort on the said land and that she could not go ahead with this project due to status quo orders passed by various courts. The respondent has also produced a copy of the ‘Essentialty Certificate’ issued in her favour by the Department of Tourism and Civil Aviation H.P. 11. It is also evident from the copy of order passed by the District Collector, Solan, dated 4.10.2012, passed in case No. 11/13 of 2011, a copy of which
was produced by the respondent, that the State of H.P. had also initiated proceedings against the respondent for violation of section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972, qua the same land as is under dispute in the present revision petitions, but these proceedings have been ordered to be dropped vide the above order of the District Collector, Solan. Moreover, the issue regarding proceedings under section 118 of the Act ibid against the respondent can not be raised by the petitioners in the mutation proceedings out of which the present revision petitions have obviously culminated. Therefore, this objection of the petitioner is also not tenable and cannot be accepted. 12. Based on the above facts and discussions, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the courts below and, therefore, the orders passed by them are upheld. The present revision petitions are without any substance and the same are dismissed. A copy of the order be placed on each revision petitions for record.”
6. The petitioner in these proceedings has again raised the same and similar grounds, which were raised before the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. These authorities have through reasoned orders rejected the claim put forth by the petitioner.
7. This court while exercising the powers in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with pure findings of fact. It is well settled that writ of certiorari is issued only when there is error of law apparent on the
face of record or else it will not interfere. The writ court will not quash the findings of fact of quasi judicial body even if they are erroneous and based on insufficient evidence. ( See: Raja Ram Chandra Reddy and another vs. Rani Shankaramma and others 1956 SC 319, Smt. Ujjam Bai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another AIR 1962 SC 1621 .
8. It is equally settled that court issues a writ of certiorari in exercise of its supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. (See: Indian Overseas Bank vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers’ Union and another 2000(4) SCC 245, Province of Bombay vs. Khushaldas S. Advani (since deceased) and after him his Legal Representatives (a) Govindram Khushaldas and (b) Ramchand Khushaldas and others AIR 1950 SC 222, Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and others AIR 1955 SC 233 and Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. vs. State of Saurashtra and others AIR 1957 SC 264).
9. Since the jurisdiction under certiorari is not appellate, it follows that a finding of fact reached by a inferior court or tribunal as a result of appreciation of evidence or an inference of fact from the material before it, cannot be re-opened on the ground that evidence relied upon is insufficient or that appreciation of evidence by the inferior court or tribunal is wrong or that some evidence was not duly considered or specifically referred to in its decision.
10. There is no gain saying that it is not the function of the writ court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own
conclusion of facts and thus interfere with the conclusion of facts reached by the inferior court or authority.
11. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
( Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
May 2, 2014. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), (Hem) Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the finding of fact regarding mutation attestation by a quasi-judicial body under the principle of supervisory jurisdiction.
Whether error of fact or insufficient evidence in inferior courts provides a ground for issuing a writ of certiorari.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raja Ram Chandra Reddy and another vs. Rani Shankaramma and othersReferred¶35
Raja Ram Chandra Reddy and another vs. Rani Shankaramma and others 1956 SC 319
Smt. Ujjam Bai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anotherReferred¶35
Smt. Ujjam Bai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another AIR 1962 SC 1621 · Who else cites this
Indian Overseas Bank vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and anotherReferred¶36
Indian Overseas Bank vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and another 2000(4) SCC 245 · Who else cites this
Province of Bombay vs. Khushaldas S. AdvaniReferred¶36
Province of Bombay vs. Khushaldas S. Advani (since deceased) and after him his Legal Representatives (a) Govindram Khushaldas and (b) Ramchand Khushaldas and ot
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and othersReferred¶36
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and others AIR 1955 SC 233 · Who else cites this
Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. vs. State of Saurashtra and othersReferred¶36
Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. vs. State of Saurashtra and others AIR 1957 SC 264 · Who else cites this
Radha Devi
State of H.P.
Rajiv Sharma
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
