Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Sri Kashmiri Lal Narang & Ors on 6 July, 2022
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
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
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 ,oa vfer dqekj
}kjk izLrqr vihy la[;k&[email protected]&2003 ,oa vfuy dqekj }kjk izLrqr
vihy la[;k&[email protected]&2003 Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk d'ehjhyky
}kjk izLrqr vihy la[;k&[email protected]&2003 dks vkaf'ke :i ls bl lhek
rd Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd vfuy dqekj rFkk uouhr dqekj ,oa
vfer dqekj dh vihyksa esa 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 esa ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k fnukad 19-7-2003 dks dsoy
bl lhek rd gh fujLr djrs gq, la'kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gSA tokgjyky
vkfn cuke ljdkj vkfn vihy la[;k&[email protected]&2003 ,oa d'ehjhyky
ukjax cuke ljdkj vkfn lhfyax vihy la[;k&[email protected]&2003 esa
mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij O;fFkr i{kksa dks viuk i{k izLrqr djus
gsrq volj fn;k tkrk gSA mDr nksuksa vihyksa dh lquokbZ gsrq fnukad
25-7-2005 dh frfFk fu;r dh tkrh gSA
3. Thereafter, the appeal was again taken up for final
disposal by the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal,
Nainital, and by virtue of the judgment dated 01.03.2006,
allowed the appeal along with appeal no. 7/2002-03
holding that late Kashmiri Lal does not have any ceiling
surplus land.
4. During course of the hearing of appeals the question
about the adult son of late Kashmiri Lal, being entitled to
a separate holding was upheld by the learned
Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal in the judgment dated
11.07.2005. That judgment has not been challenged by
the State in this writ application. Secondly, in that said
appeal, the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, also
came to the conclusion that auction made in favour of
Anil Kumar and others are also not illegal and that those
lands cannot be included to this ceiling land of late
Kashmiri Lal. Unfortunately, the State has not preferred
any appeal against the judgment passed by the learned
Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal and those orders has
attained its finality, having not been challenged by any of
the parties.
5. Now, at this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for
the State would vehemently argue and point out that the
learned Commissioner's order is illegal as far as it
pertains to the findings recorded by him on 11.07.2005,
which is not under challenge.
6. Secondly, as this is a proceeding for issuance of writ
of certiorari and exercise of superintending jurisdiction of
the Court, this Court is not inclined to go into the facts. In
an application for issuance of certiorari or for correcting
an error of jurisdiction committed by the lower tribunal,
the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India can correct gross error of
jurisdiction, i.e., when subordinate court is found to have
acted (i) without jurisdiction; (ii) by assuming the
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).
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.
10. Urgent certified copy of the judgment be provided as
per rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
PV
