Writ petition challenging restoration of tribal land ordered in State appeal against an S.A.R. validation order under Section 71A CNT Act. Court held the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction, facts differed from prior cases as fraud was alleged, certiorari scope is limited, and dismissed the petition.
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 JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4943 of 2016
Mahabir Gupta, son of Ugan Saw, resident of Village-Virendawan Nagar, Madhukam, Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, Dist.-Ranchi
.... Petitioner
Versus
…. Respondents
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sushavan Bhowmik, AC to SC V
By the Court:-
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and where under, the order passed by the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No.306
W.P. (C) No.4943 of 2016
1
of 2012-13; whereby the land, which is the subject matter of the appeal concerned, has been directed to be restored in favour of the pro-forma respondent of the appeal.
W.P. (C) No.4943 of 2016
2
has been received by the respondent no.4. After a lapse of a year of time an appeal was filed by the State through S.A.R. Officer being the respondent no.3 which was registered as S.A.R. Appeal No.52R 15/2014-15. The writ petitioner appeared in the appeal and claimed that the appeal is barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that house existed before the promulgation of Schedule Area Regulation Act, 1969. The respondent no.2 after hearing the parties condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the appeal and ordered for restoring the land of the pro-forma respondent of the appeal; as already indicated above, in this judgment.
W.P. (C) No.4943 of 2016
3
aggrieved by the order, the coordinate Bench held that Deputy Commissioner has no authority to direct the circle officer to file appeal against the order passed by Special Officer in S.A.R. Case and allowed the writ petition and dismissed the S.A.R. appeal in that case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P. (C) No. 4938 of 2016 dated 19.09.2018 wherein in the facts of that case, the coordinate Bench observed that the State Government may assume the status of the aggrieved party and on its behalf any officer duly authorized may prefer an appeal and on the facts of that case when the appeal was preferred on the direction of the respondent no.2 who himself was appellate authority, the coordinate Bench considering the principle that no person can be a judge of its own case and in the facts of that case relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) and reversed the order passed by the appellate court in that case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed.
W.P. (C) No.4943 of 2016
4
Tenancy Act, 1908 and the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing the revision in terms of Section 217 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the fact of this case is entirely different from the facts of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) and Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) . It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order itself suggest that there was collusion and fraud committed by the S.A.R. officer. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that an inquiry was conducted by the team of experts and certain irregularities were detected in the impugned proceeding by the S.A.R. hence, the State Government took the decision to file an appeal therefore, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order by the respondent no.2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the learned appellate court has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court to the effect that it is settled proposition of law that a judgment and decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and it can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. It is next submitted that, occasion for referring to the said judgment arose, because it was averred by the appellant state, that the order impugned before the Deputy Commissioner, is an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is crystal clear
W.P. (C) No.4943 of 2016
5
from the inquiry report and photograph submitted by the team of experts that only recently substantial structure on the land was directed and such erection was made seven to eight years ago; from such report. It is next submitted that from the cogent materials thus available in the record, the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner inferred that S.A.R. Officer has validated the transfer in favour of the respondents illegally; on the pretext that substantial structure has been erected prior to formulation of Schedule Area Regulation. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as there is categorical averment that the order of S.A.R. officer which was impugned before the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner was outcome of fraud and misrepresentation so the ratio of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) is not applicable to this case because of the observation in the said case itself that such observation was made; in the facts of that case, when there was no allegation that there was collusion or that a fraud has been played. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that since Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) was also passed , basing upon the ratio of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) , so obviously the observations made in Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) in the facts of the case, where there was no collusion or fraud. As there is categorical averment in the appeal memo which has been accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, that the order passed by S.A.R. Officer is
W.P. (C) No.4943 of 2016
6
outcome of fraud and misrepresentation hence, the ratio of Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed.
W.P. (C) No.4943 of 2016
7
indulgence in fraud and misrepresentation, certainly the State cannot be debarred from filing any appeal.
that scope of interference with an order in exercise of the power vested upon constitutional courts for certiorari is a very limited one and the finding of fact recorded by the court below cannot be interfered with in exercise of such writ jurisdiction as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES
& ANR. VERSUS BIKARTAN DAS & ORS. 2023INSC733 , paragraph 53 and 77 of which reads as under:
53. Relying on T.C. Basappa (supra) , the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra) , laid down the following propositions as well established:
“(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it.
(2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice.
(3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.”
77. It being open to the tribunals to come to one or the other conclusion on the materials before them, it cannot by any means be said that the decisions are incorrect so as to attract the extraordinary jurisdiction for interference by a writ of certiorari. In a King's Bench decision in R. v. Brighton and Area Rent Tribunal, (1950) 1 All England Reporter 946, Lord Goddard, CJ. observed that: “… As the tribunal had observed all the formalities of the Act, had offended against none of its provisions or against the regulations made under it, there was no ground for holding that the tribunal's determination was not in accordance with law, and, therefore, the motions for certiorari and mandamus should be refused”. The purpose of certiorari, as we understand, is only to confine the inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction, so as to avoid the irregular exercise, or the
W.P. (C) No.4943 of 2016
8
non-exercise or the illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in the exercise of powers vested in them under the statute. The accepted rule is that where a Court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which crops up in the case and whether its decision is correct or otherwise, it is bound to stand until reversed by a competent Court. This Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others, (1952) 1 SCC 334 observed: “26. Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases 61where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction may be, it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made.” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, law is well settled that t he court issuing a writ of certiorari
acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.
W.P. (C) No.4943 of 2016
9
Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 against the order sought to be quashed. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the facts of the case of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) and Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) are entirely different from the fact of this case as in this case there is allegation of fraud and misrepresentation and there is specific allegation that order passed by the respondent no.3-S.A.R. Officer was outcome of fraud and misrepresentation.
to interfere with the order sought to be quashed and set aside in this writ petition. Thus this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 4th July, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
W.P. (C) No.4943 of 2016
10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Commissioner validly entertained and allowed a State appeal against an S.A.R. Officer's validation order under Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act?
Whether writ interference with the appellate order was warranted despite allegations of fraud by the S.A.R. Officer?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dinesh Ram vs. The State of JharkhandDistinguished
Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P. (C) No. 6487 of 2014 dated 19.02.2015
Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of JharkhandDistinguished
Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P. (C) No. 4938 of 2016 dated 19.09.2018
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan DasRelied on¶9
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANR. VERSUS BIKARTAN DAS & ORS. 2023INSC733
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Mahabir Gupta
The State of Jharkhand
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi Collectorate
Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi Collectorate
Prabhu Oraon
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
