1988 Supreme(Raj) 785
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
D.L.Mehta, Farooq Hassan, JJ.
Smt. Bhonri Alias Jatan Kanwar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2345 of 1988.
Decided On : 28-09-1988
Important Points
Subject
Revenue Law - KHUDKASHT LAND - TENANCY RIGHTS
Headnote
REVENUE LAW - KHUDKASHT LAND - TENANCY RIGHTS - REVENUE APPELLATE AUTHORITY - JURISDICTION - SCOPE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI - ERRORS OF FACT - REVIEW OF EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - INFERENCE FROM EVIDENCE - JURISDICTION OF WRIT COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the validity of orders passed by the Board of Revenue and Revenue Appellate Authority, which dismissed his claim for declaration of tenancy rights over a piece of land recorded as 'Sawai Chak-Charagah' (pasture land) in revenue records. Petitioner claimed that the land was in his Khudkasht and was erroneously recorded as pasture land. The revenue courts dismissed his claim due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents before the revenue courts to establish his Khatedari rights over the land. The court also held that the findings of the revenue courts were not erroneous in law and did not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had produced sufficient evidence before the revenue courts to establish his Khatedari rights over the land. 2. Whether the findings of the revenue courts were erroneous in law and warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents before the revenue courts to establish his Khatedari rights over the land. The court also held that the findings of the revenue courts were not erroneous in law and did not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. The court held that the scope of a writ of certiorari is limited to removing or adjudicating on the validity of judicial acts. The court cannot review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. 3. The court held that findings of fact reached by the inferior court as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings. 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 inferior court, the points cannot be agitated before a writ court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no justification for interference in the impugned orders passed by the inferior courts.