Allahabad High Court
Babu Nath vs Addl. Commissioner And Others on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000168 of 1995
Petitioner :- Babu Nath
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Pandey,Avadhesh Kumar,Umajeet Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 07.09.1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) and the appellate order dated 12.09.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased a land in Gata No. 93 minjumla measuring 3 acre by means of a registered sale-deed dated 17.03.1960 from the original tenure holder i.e. Raj Kumar Jai Singh. It is further submitted that prior to the execution of sale deed on 17.03.1960, an agreement to sell was entered prior to the prescribed date i.e. 20.08.1959 as per the old Act i.e. U. P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1957'). It is further submitted that all these facts were brought to notice of the prescribed authority and the appellate authority but without considering the same, the claim of the petitioner was rejected under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act and declaring the said land as surplus treating it to be holding of the original tenure holder i.e. Raj Kumar Jai Singh. It is further submitted that the authorities had not decided the issue relating to whether 3 acre land in Gata No. 93 min. was a grove land or an agricultural land.
On the other hand, learned standing counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority. It is further submitted that the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are related to the questions of fact against which writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radha Krishnan [AIR 1964 SC 477] which has been followed by this Court in the case of Jaleshwar Nath Tewari vs. State of U.P. and Ors. passed on 28.03.1989 in W.P. No. 2731 of 1982. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment is being quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
" There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the fact of the record can be corrected by a writ but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Syed Yakood Vs. K.S. Radha Krishnan(supra)."
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and the judgment relied by the State, the position which emerges out in the present case is that there is a specific finding in the order of the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner has not filed or produced the original copy of the sale-deed. There is a finding that as claimed by the petitioner that there was an agreement to sell in the year 1958 even that has not been proved nor produced. There is also a finding that the witness in his statement has failed to prove the agreement to sell or unable to state that the agreement to sell was executed in his presence. It is further observed in the order that the application under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act was moved after 22 years of the order. There is also a finding that as per the statement of the lekhpal the land in question entered as a ceiling land in the consolidation record.
Once the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority had not accepted the case of the petitioners regarding alleged sale deed in his favour then there was no occasion to adjudicate the submissions regarding whether it was a grove land or an agricultural land.
The appellate authority has affirmed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority with a specific finding that in the Court below the petitioner had not filed any evidence that Raj Kumar Jaisingh, the original tenure holder had ever executed any power of attorney but the same has been denied and disputed by the petitioner that no such point was ever argued before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has given specific finding that neither the agreement to sell as alleged to be executed in the year 1958 was ever produced nor the same was proved. The petitioner neither in the writ petition nor urged before this Court that the findings in the order of Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority are erroneous or against the evidence on the record.
As Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob (supra), which has been followed by this Court in the case of Jaleshwar Nath Tewari (supra) has held that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not act as an appellate court. Further as per the settled law, if the authorities have reached to the finding of fact after appreciating the evidence, then it cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ jurisdiction. Undisputedly, this Court can interfere while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record but shall not interfere where the matter is concluded by pure findings of fact.
Undisputedly, this Court can interfere while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is an error of law apparent on the face of record but shall not interfere where the matter is concluded by pure findings of fact.
The petition is devoid of any merit, accordingly it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2022
Nitesh
