Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The occupants of the land continued to assert their rights and approached the Board of Revenue for mutation of their names on sixty acres of land in Survey No. 9 which they claimed to be in their actual possession. In the review petition filed by the occupants of the land the Board examined the documents of the produced by the occupants and by order dated 06.8.1974 (Ex. A-15) came to the conclusion that sixty acres of land from Survey No. 9 in Saroornagar Village was granted as mafi-inam to Syed Khasim. The review petition was allowed by order dated 06.8.1974 of Board of Revenue but option was given to the government to take over the said Inam land, if they so desire, on payment of compensation. The said order of the Board of Revenue remained unchallenged by the State. The respondents - occupants then filed a writ petition seeking implementation of the order of the Board of Revenue mentioned above. The writ petition No. 1683 of 1977 filed by the occupants was allowed by order dated 01.3.1978 of the High Court with issuance of directions to the authorities to implement the order of Board of Revenue dated 06.8.1974 whereunder the rights of the occupants to the land in question were recognised. An option was left to the government to invoke its revisional powers, if available, in accordance with law.

"All the above documents show that sixty acres of land in survey no. 9/1 of Saroornagar village was granted as inam to Syed Khasim. He was in possession of that land during his life time. He has taken up proceedings for getting his name mutated in revenue records and the litigation continued. Irrespective of litigation, the documents clearly show that inam was granted to Syed Khasim and he was trying to get his name mutated in revenue records.
The petitioner relied on pahani patrikas (Exs. A-2 to A-13 and A-2 to A-28) for the period from 1962-63 to 1986-87, which are for the continuous periods. It is a fact that the name of the son of Inamdar of fifth respondent. It is a fact that the name of the son of Inamdar of fifth respondent has not been mentioned therein. It is to be noticed that since the inception the inamdar, his son and thereafter the fifth respondent were agitating to get the names recorded in revenue records before the Collector. In those circumstances, possibly their names do not find place in the revenue records. Unless the names are mutated in Jamabandi, they cannot be carried over each year. Non-mention of names of the inamdar or his son in revenue records is not fatal to the case of fifth respondent. Exs. A-29 to A-35 are faisal pattis from 1968-69 to 1977-78. In documents, the name of fifth respondent is recorded as a person in possession and he was directed to pay revenue and penalty as trespasser. Thus, the name of fifth respondent does find place in revenue records."
In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of Certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law.
After detailed examination of the findings of the Special Court and the contrary findings recorded by the High Court, we do not find that the High Court has in any manner exceeded its writ jurisdiction. The Special Court declared the occupants as 'land grabbers' holding that the Muntakhab contained in the file (Ex. C-4) is not reliable and supported by any corresponding revenue entries in favour of the occupants. The High Court, which alone could have examined the correctness of the decision of the Special Court, in the absence of any remedy of appeal, rightly observed that it was within its power to re-examine the evidence to ascertain the correctness of the findings of the Special Court In doing so, the High Court found that the documents of title Muntakhab (Ex. B-9) contained seal of the Ex Ruler. The boundaries and plan were appended to it. It found that the Special Court wrongly held that since the Muntakhab did not earmark area of grant in the survey No. 9, the grant was insufficient to prove title to the land in actual occupation of the respondents. The High Court also found that order of the Board of Revenue directing mutation in favour of the occupants remained unchallenged and was not implemented despite directions of the High Court in the earlier writ petition. The High Court also found that the rejection of the title of the occupants on the ground that there were no mutation entires made pursuant to the muntakhab was an error caused by overlooking important revenue entries in favour of the occupants which are contained in pahani patrikas (Exs. A-2 to A-13 and A-2 to A-28) for the period from 1962-63 to 1986-87. We have extracted above the findings of the Special Court and the contrary findings recorded by the High Court to show that the High Court interferred with the judgment of the Special Court not merely because it found its reasoning or conclusions erroneous but it found that important evidence corroborating the grant i.e. muntakhab (Ex. B-9). contained in the file (Ex. C-4), which was summoned from the office of the Erstwhile Ruler, was not properly scrutinised by the Special Court and Important revenue records available were disregarded. According to the High Court, the Special Court was clearly wrong in holding the occupants of the land as 'land grabbers' when they had produced documents of title and orders of Revenue Board and the High Court. The legal representatives of the original grantee Syed Khasim had been throughout litigating in the revenue courts and the High Court for obtaining mutation in their names in the revenue records and for recognition of their rights as inamdars by virtue of the grant of the Ex Ruler in their favour. The Special Court on unsubstantial grounds had rejected their claims to title and possession of the land. The High Courts in its writ jurisdiction was, therefore, fully justified in examining those documents of title and upsetting the judgment of the Special Court on the ground that material evidence and circumstances proved by the occupants were overlooked in holding the occupants as land grabbers. In the course of hearing of these appeals, the relevant documents of title were placed before us for perusal and translated copies of the same have been supplied to us in the form of an additional paper-book. We have heard the parties and ourselves looked into the papers to find that there exists overwhelming record of title and possession of the land in favour of the occupants and they could not have been termed as 'land grabbers'.