State Of W.B. vs Murari Mohan Maity And Ors.
- SCC(1998) 8 SCC 730
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the determination of a dispute depends upon the assessment and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and the lower appellate authority (here, the Tribunal) has examined such evidence and rendered findings of fact, the High Court will not interfere with those findings in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless the decision is vitiated by patent illegality or jurisdictional error.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal against the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed on behalf of the appellant-State.
2. The respondents claimed settlement on the basis of Amalnamas granted in the year 1955. Thereafter, the revisional survey records of rights were finally published under Section 44(2) of the aforesaid Act showing the settles to be in possession of the lands in question. After 12 years from the final publication of RS records of rights, the Revenue Officer issued notices in purported exercise of power under Section 44(2)(a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 to enquire into the validity of the settlements made in favour of the respondents to the said proceedings. The Revenue Officer held the settlements to be invalid. Being aggrieved by the said order, appeals were preferred before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The Tribunal examined the controversies on the basis of the materials adduced before the Revenue Officer and came to the conclusion that there was no occasion to come to the conclusion that the eleven finally published Khatians were invalid. The Tribunal also pointed out that the revisional survey records of rights had been prepared after proper enquiries. On the aforesaid findings, the appeals of the respondents were allowed. The High Court in the impugned judgment has pointed out that the decisions which were being challenged in different writ petitions were dependent on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence. It was also pointed out by the High Court that the unregistered Amalnamas had not been accepted as genuine by the Revenue Officer, but the lower appellate court had held that the entries made in the records on the basis of the Amalnamas and other documents were genuine. In this background, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. According to us, the High Court was perfectly justified in taking the view aforesaid and we find no reason to differ from the same.
3. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free