1975 (11) TMI 171 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.
2. Validity of tenancy claims by Jagga and Meet Singh.
3. Jurisdiction and scope of interference by the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Determination of Surplus Area:
The Special Collector, Chandigarh, initially declared 132 standard acres and 11.5 units of land as surplus area of Mahant Gurnarain u/s Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. This included 13 standard acres and 1.5 units allotted to the appellants. Later, the Special Collector excluded this area from the surplus pool, assigning it to Jagga and Meet Singh as their permissible area, claiming they were tenants on the crucial date, 15.4.1953.

2. Validity of Tenancy Claims:
The appellants contended that Jagga and Meet Singh were not tenants on the crucial date. The Special Collector, after rehearing and further evidence, found that Rattan Singh, father of Jagga, was a tenant from 1948 to 1952, and the entry of Rattan Singh son of Dalip Singh in 1952-53 was a clerical error. The Collector's finding was based on oral and documentary evidence, including Khasra Girdawaries and receipts. The Commissioner and Financial Commissioner upheld this finding, dismissing the appellants' appeals and revisions.

3. Jurisdiction and Scope of Interference by High Court:
The High Court, in writ proceedings u/Articles 226/227, held that it could not interfere with findings of fact unless there was an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court reiterated that Certiorari jurisdiction is for correcting jurisdictional errors, not for reappraising evidence. The Special Collector's finding was based on evidence and did not suffer from jurisdictional error. The Commissioner and Financial Commissioner's orders, despite some irrelevant references, were upheld as they did not affect the ultimate decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that there was no justification for interference in Certiorari jurisdiction. The Court also observed that if the appellants are landless tillers or ex-servicemen, their claims for allotment of land from the surplus pool should be given due consideration by the authorities.