Magar Singh vs The Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This wit petition is filed to quash the order of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Zira dated 25th September, 1978 vide Annexure P-8 and the order of the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur dated 19th October, 1981 vide Annexure P-10.

The petitioner applied for the transfer of his agricultural land bearing khasra Nos. 15/16/2, 17, 24, 25/1 and 2/20/2 situated in village Jaspur alias Gehli Wala, Teh-sil Zira on the ground that he has been continuously in possession of the same since 1972. The said application was considered by the Tehsildar Mahal-cum-Sales, Moga, who directed that Khasra No. 15/16/2, 17 and 22/20/2 measuring 15 kanals 12 Marias be mutated in his name, but refused to mutate the land in Khasra No. 15/24 and 25/1 to the extent of 11 Kanals 10 Marias in his name on the ground that he has not been found in continuous possession of the same since 1972. Subsequently, he filed an application before the Naib Tehsildar for correction of Girdawari. Accordingly, the Girdawari was corrected in the year 1975. After having the girdawari corrected, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of Tehsildar Mahal-cum-Sales, Moga dated 19th December, 1974 before the Settlement Officer (S) Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jullundur, who dismissed his appeal on 6th November, 1975 vide Annexure P-6. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Deputy Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner, who remanded the case to the Sales Commissioner, Punjab, who allowed the appeal of the petitioner: Against the said order, one Khushia filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) who after going through the record, set aside the order of Tehsildar (Sales) dated 5th January, 1978 by his order dated 25th September, 1978 and again remanded the matter to Tehsildar (Sales) for fresh decision in accordance with law. Against the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jullundur, who quashed the order of the Sale Commissioner, Zira and remanded the matter for a fresh decision according to the rules. Against the said order of the Chief Sales Commissioner, Punjab, Khushia filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, who by the impugned order dated 19th October, 1981 set aside the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner and held that Khasra No. 151 /24 and 25/1 have been purchased by Khushia in restricted auction. Therefore, there is no question for remanding the case to the Tehsildar again. He considered the entire matter at length and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in respect of Khasra No. 151 /24 and 25/1. He also observed that Khushia, the 4th Respondent in this writ petition, purchased the property in Khasra No. 15/24 and 25/1 in a restricted auction and the corrected Khasra girdawaris are contrary to the Policy decision of the State issued in the Press Note dated 4th September, 1974 and the entries in Khasra Girdawari were corrected without any notice to Khushia, the purchaser in restricted auction. The record clearly shows that the name of the petitioner did not appear in the Khasra Girdawari as cultivator prior to the corrections. The corrections have been made after passing of the order by the Tehsildar Mahal-cum-Sales, Moga dated 19th December, 1974 and the petitioner cannot take advantage of the corrections made in the Khasra girdawari after the decision rendered by the Tehsildar (Sales) Moga. Further it cannot be said that the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 19th October, 1981 has been passed without any evidence. This Court while exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction is not empowered to correct any error of fact when the same is based on evidence. The finding of fact arrived at by the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur is final. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Murlidhar Jena AIR 1963 S.C. 40, that the High Court has no power to reappreciate the evidence. In Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, it has been held that "the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court while exercising it, is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that the findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings."

After going through the record, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, dated 19th October, 1981. As already stated that the corrections of girdawari were made after Ist August, 1974. The policy of the Government is that the corrections made after Ist August, 1974 shall not be taken into consideration. It is not shown that the policy of the Government is in any way illegal. It is based on reasonable rationale to prevent the misuse of power by the authorities as girdawari has to be prepared every year. As already pointed out, the petitioner applied for correction of girdawari only after an order against him has been passed by the Tehsildar Mahal-cum-Sales, Moga on 19th December, 1974. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Additional Commissioner has rightly excluded the corrected entries of girdawari from consideration. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any error or illegality, in the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner and the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.