9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Status of the appellant as a raiyat or tenure holder. 2. Status of the respondent as a temporary lessee. 3. Jurisdiction and propriety of the High Court's interference with the findings of the Revenue Tribunals. 4. Conduct of the enquiry by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Status of the Appellant as a Raiyat or Tenure Holder: The primary issue was whether the appellant was a raiyat or a tenure holder. The Assistant Settlement Officer found that the appellant was a permanent Mokarari tenure holder, not a raiyat, and directed the entry in Khatian No. 52 to reflect this. The District Judge affirmed this finding, and the High Court upheld this decision. The High Court noted that the appellant had consented to the amendment allowing the respondent to challenge the status of the appellant. The Assistant Settlement Officer, District Judge, and High Court provided several cogent reasons for concluding that the appellant was a tenure holder. Mr. Chatterjee's argument that the High Court's decision was illogical was dismissed, as the Assistant Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to decide the objections raised by the respondent regarding the draft record-of-rights. 2. Status of the Respondent as a Temporary Lessee: The Assistant Settlement Officer found that the respondent was a temporary lessee under the appellant for two years, from January 1954 to January 1956, at a rental of Rs. 25,000 per year. This finding was affirmed by the District Judge. However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that there was no material basis to conclude that the respondent was a temporary lessee. The High Court found that the Assistant Settlement Officer and District Judge had misconstrued the compromise between the parties and that the statements in criminal proceedings describing the respondent as a lessee were inadmissible. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, stating that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 by interfering with the findings of the Revenue Tribunals, as there was enough material to support the conclusion that the respondent was a temporary lessee. 3. Jurisdiction and Propriety of the High Court's Interference: The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is not appellate but supervisory, intended to keep subordinate courts within their authority. The High Court should not have interfered with the findings of the Revenue Tribunals unless there was a jurisdictional error or the findings were based on no material or were perverse. The Supreme Court found that the Revenue Tribunals' findings were based on material evidence and were not perverse. Therefore, the High Court's interference was unjustified. 4. Conduct of the Enquiry by the Assistant Settlement Officer: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the Assistant Settlement Officer not maintaining a record of the oral evidence adduced during the enquiry. Although the rules did not require a record of evidence, the Supreme Court emphasized that maintaining a record is necessary for an effective appeal. The absence of a record could nullify the statutory right of appeal. The Supreme Court suggested that the Assistant Settlement Officer should maintain some record to enable the appellate authority to review the materials on which the decision was based. Conclusion: Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1960, filed by the appellant, was dismissed, affirming the appellant's status as a tenure holder. Civil Appeal No. 106 of 1960, filed by the respondent, was allowed, reinstating the finding that the respondent was a temporary lessee. The revision under Article 227 preferred by the appellant to the High Court was dismissed. The respondent was entitled to costs in the Supreme Court.
|
