Devinder Nath vs Director Consolidation of Holdings and Others

N.C. Khichi, J.—In this writ petition, the legality and validity of order dated 4.10.1975 (Ann.P.3), passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar, and order dated 21.2.1980 (Ann.P.4), passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, have been challenged.

During the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner was allotted abadi plot in accordance with the scheme. One Telu Ram was also allotted a plot. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner filed an objection petition before the Consolidation Officer, Garhshankar, respondent No. 2 who dismissed the same on 19.5.1967. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, the ''Act''). Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 28.5.1968, remanded the case for carving out the Abadi plots. However, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 13.11.1968, decided the case afresh and gave a plot to Shri Telu Ram. Again respondent No. 1 when approached in appeal, remanded the case for fresh decision keeping in view his previous order dated 28.5.1968. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 managed to construct a house on a plot which was to be carved out for the petitioner. Ultimately the remand case was decided by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 4.10.1975 (Ann. P.3) vide which he again declined the objections and stuck to his previous decision. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed a petition u/s 42 of the Act before the Director Consolidation who dismissed the same vide order dated 21.2.1980 (Ann.P.4).

Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed a written statement and pleaded that respondent No. 4 Shri Bal Kishan purchased the plot in dispute from Telu Ramon 11.2.1966 and he has constructed a house thereon. According to him, one Munshi son of Jhandu, purchased l/3rd share of Khasra No. 1370 from Maula Bux and mutation No. 1454 was duly sanctioned on 28.12.1932 in his favour. On the death of Munshi, his estate was mutated in the names of Telu and Maluka, sons of Ram Chand, Nama, Tulsi, sons of Jhandu vide mutation No. 1688. Telu and Maluka and others continued to be in possession of the Khasra No. 3553/1370 (0-10) as is evident from the Jamabandi for the years 1940-41 (Ann.R.4), 1944-45 (Ann.R.5) and 1954-55 (Ann. R.6.). During consolidation, Telu and others were allotted Killa No. 172/16 (o-7) in lieu of their old land of Khasra No. 3553/1370. Later on, Telu and Maluka sold this land to Bal Kishan, respondent No. 4 on 11.2.1966 and mutation No. 3640 was duly sanctioned.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently nrgued that the petitioner was allotted Abadi plot with narrow strips inside the circular road with a width of 3 to 4 karams and having length of 22-26 Karams which was unfit for abadi purpose and that respondent No. 2 did not comply with the orders of respondents No. 1 vide which the case was remanded for fresh decision. He has further submitted that Telu Ram could not have been given any plot as he was not resident of village Birampur and as such, the orders Annexures P.3 and P.4, passed by the official respondents Nos. 2 and 1, respectively, are perverse and illegal and are liable to be set-aside.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record of the case, I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter:

It is well-settled principle of law, namely, that a writ of certiorari can be issued by the High Court only when the impugned orders are without jurisdiction or where the impugned action suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of it. What is an error of law, has been aptly described in Sayed Yakub v. Radha Krishan 1964 SC 477, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"The jurisdiction of High Court 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 face 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.

A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot, however, be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the points cannot be agitated before a writ Court.''

When the case was remanded to respondent No. 2, he was well within his competence to pass a fresh order as has been done in this case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations of respondent No. 1 regarding the carving out of the plots were binding on respondent No. 2, does not appeal to reasons. Once the case is remanded, a fresh decision has to be taken.

Again, whether the plot allotted to the petitioner was suitable for Abadi purpose or not, is question of fact, which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plot of Telu Ram was not allotted in accordance with the scheme, is also without any force and substance. Copy from the consolidation scheme of village Birampur Hadbast No. 357 in Ann.R.11. According to Clause 1 of this scheme, the area situated outside the Lal Lakir but has come within the Phirni, will be allotted to its original owners, in a proper shape. As is evident from the record produced, plot No. 172/16, was allotted to Telu and Maluka during consolidation in lieu of their old Khasra No. 3553/1370 purchased by their uncle Munshi. Bal Kishan, respondent No. 4, purchased this plot on 11.2.1966 long before. The disputed area within the Phirni has been rightly given to the previous owners. The impugned orders Annexures P.3 and P.4, are wellreasoned and no error of law having been committed is found therein. The authorities under the Act, committed no illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned orders Annexures P.3 and P.4, the same cannot be treated as erroneous in law so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.