The Jharkhand High Court in a petition filed seeking a writ of certiorari observed that the jurisdictional scope of certiorari is limited and while exercising the jurisdiction of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court does not sit in an appeal over the order passed by the authority and the jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate and the evidence cannot be re-appraised and certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only to correct the error of jurisdiction.
Brief Facts:
The petition filed the present petition against the impugned order by which restoration of 0.10 and ½ acres, i.e., 10 ½ decimals of land has been refused.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the judgment in the case of Pratap Mehta vs Sunil Gupta wherein it was held that a writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the High Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court.
Further, the court referred to the judgment in Rengali Hydro Electric Project Vs. Giridhari Sahu wherein it was held that the jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari is supervisory and not appellate. The Court considering a writ application of certiorari will not don the cap of an appellate court. It will not re-appreciate evidence. The writ of certiorari is intended to correct jurisdictional excesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that once a decision is rendered by a body amenable to certiorari jurisdiction, certiorari could be issued when a jurisdictional error is clearly established. The jurisdictional error may be from failure to observe the limits of its jurisdiction.
The court further stated that in the present case, the petitioner was dispossessed 37 years back by virtue of a deed of disclaimer and the petitioner, after 37 years woke up from the deep slumber and filed an application for restoration.
The decision of the Court:
The court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Santosh Oraon @ Santosh Uran vs State of Jharkhand and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Ananda Sen
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 3606 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Abhilash Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Archna Kumari
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
