The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed writ petitions seeking to quash orders of the Commissioner and Prescribed Authority under the Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act, 1960, for lack of jurisdiction and absence of patent error.
Writ petitions dismissed without merits. No order as to costs.
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 UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 260 of 2007 (M/S)
State of Uttarakhand ….. Petitioner Versus
Sri Kashmiri Lal Narang & Ors. …..Respondents
Present:
Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned counsel for the petitioner/State. Mr. Vijay Bhatt and Mr. D. Pant, the learned counsel for the private respondents.
With
Writ Petition No. 259 of 2007 (M/S)
State of Uttarakhand ….. Petitioner Versus Sri Jawahar Lal & Ors. …..Respondents
Present:
Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned counsel for the petitioner/State. Non appearance for the respondents.
Date of hearing and judgement : 06.07.2022
Sri S.K. Mishra, J.
(Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court made the following judgment:
By filing these writ applications under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner i.e. State of Uttarakhand has prayed for writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 01.03.2006, annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital and to uphold the order dated 19.07.2003, passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling)/Additional Collector (F & R) Udham Singh Nagar.
2. The respondent late Kashmiri Lal was a tenure holder. Against him, ceiling proceedings under the Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) was initiated, bearing Ceiling Case No. 51/27 in the year
2
1993-94 to adjudicate why the area of 11.722 hectare of lands, out of the total land i.e. 23.022 hectare, owned by said late Kashmiri Lal shall not be determined as surplus land under the provisions of aforesaid Act. On 26.09.1995, the Prescribed Authority declared land of late Kashmiri Lal, measuring 11.722 hectare of irrigated land, as surplus. The said order was put to challenge by late Kashmiri Lal in Ceiling Appeal No. 8/8 of 1996-97 before the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital which was disposed of by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaon Mandal, Nainital on 28.11.1997 remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority to decided the matter on merits. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling)/Additional Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, disposed of the matter declaring 11.722 hectares of irrigated land as surplus. The order dated 24.02.1999 was challenged before the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital in Appeal Nos. 3/4 of 1998-99, 4/2 of 1998-99 and 5/8 of 1998-99, which was initially disposed of on 30.12.1999 and the impugned order dated 24.02.1999 was set aside directing the Prescribed Authority to re-consider the matter after issuing fresh notice to late Kashmiri Lal and others. The Prescribed Authority took up the matter, issued fresh notices and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, passed same order declaring 11.722 hectare irrigated land of late Kashmiri Lal as surplus on 19.07.2003. Aggrieved by the said order, deceased/respondent no. 1 filed appeal no. 5/2002-2003. A separate appeal bearing Ceiling Appeal No. 7/2002-03 was preferred by Jawahar Lal and two appeals were
3
preferred by other persons before the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. It is, however, borne out from the record that since the land in question were same, the learned Commissioner took up hearing of Ceiling Appeal No. 5/2002-2003 and 7/2002-2003 (out of which present writ petition arise) and by virtue of order dated 11.07.2005 disposed of the same, allowing all the appeals except 5/2002-2003. The appeal No. 5/2002-03 was allowed in part. The learned Commissioner passed the following order:
“ vijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij uouhr dqekj ,o a vfer dqekj }kjk izLrqr vihy l a [;k&4@2002&2003 ,o a vfuy dqekj }kjk izLrqr vihy l a [;k&6@2002&2003 Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk d'ehjhyky }kjk izLrqr vihy l a [;k&5@2002&2003 dks vk a f'ke :i ls bl lhek rd Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd vfuy dqekj rFkk uouhr dqekj ,o a vfer dqekj dh vihyks a es a vUrZfufgr iz'uxr Hkwfe dks ewy [kkrsnkj d'ehjhyky dh tksr ls i`Fkd djrs gq, voj U;k;ky; }kjk ljdkj cuke d'ehjhyky es a ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k fnuk a d 19-7-2003 dks dsoy bl lhek rd gh fujLr djrs gq, l a 'kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gSA tokgjyky vkfn cuke ljdkj vkfn vihy l a [;k&7@2002&2003 ,o a d'ehjhyky ukj a x cuke ljdkj vkfn lhfy a x vihy l a [;k&5@2002&2003 e sa mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij O;fFkr i{kks a dks viuk i{k izLrqr djus gsrq volj fn;k tkrk gSA mDr nksuks a vihyks a dh lquokbZ gsrq fnuk a d 25-7-2005 dh frfFk fu;r dh tkrh gSA
4
5
jurisdiction which it does not have, or in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping the limits of jurisdiction; or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, or failed to exercise the jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction, though available, is being exercised by a court in a manner not permitted by law and a failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere error of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied viz., (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. A patent error is an error which is self evident i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involvement without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (The above principles are so settled that it is not necessary to quote any precedents).
6
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the State of Uttarakhand does not come within the purview of the parameters that guide a proceeding for issuance of writ of certiorari under Article 226 or the supervisory jurisdiction as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that as there is no question of lack of jurisdiction or improper use of jurisdiction or over stepping of jurisdiction, there is no need to devolve into the question of factual aspect involve in a certiorari proceedings. There is also no pleading raised by the State of Uttarakhand that if the order is allowed to stand it will cause grave injustice to any of the parties.
9. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions sans merit, and, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
PV
7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash an order where no lack of jurisdiction, improper use of jurisdiction, or
Whether the principles governing issuance of writ of certiorari are satisfied in the present case involving findings not under challenge.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Uttarakhand
Sri Kashmiri Lal Narang & Ors.
Sri Jawahar Lal & Ors.
Sri S.K. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
