The Rajasthan High Court elucidated that a decision based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law or where there is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record is amenable to a Writ of Certiorari.

The Jodhpur Bench elucidated thus in Special Appeals preferred against the Writ Court’s decision not to interfere with the Orders passed by the Board of Revenue in 1993 and 1997 by which the Authorized Officer’s decision to resume land was approved.

A Division Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed, “The statutory authority may be competent to enter upon an inquiry but while making the inquiry it cannot act in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or in violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is entitled to embark upon an exercise to test legality of the order passed by a statutory authority under the Rajasthan Ceiling Act where the order is challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In our opinion, a decision based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law or where there is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record is certainly amenable to a writ of certiorari.”

The Bench noted that a Certiorari may be granted where the statutory authority acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction and its object is to secure by authority of a superior Court that the jurisdiction of the inferior Tribunal should be properly exercised.

Advocate Satya Prakash Sharma represented the Appellants while AAG S.S. Ladrecha represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

Raghvendra Singh and Manvendra Singh both sons of late Bheem Singh Ji claiming themselves to be the residents of Beenawas within Tehsil Bilara in the District of Jodhpur, approached the Division Bench to question the Order dismissing a Civil Writ Petition. A proceeding was drawn against Bheem Singh Ji and his family members under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act 1973 (Rajasthan Ceiling Act), the provisions of which had come into force with effect from January 1, 1973. Pursuantly, an inquiry was caused and a report was submitted whereunder Bheem Singh and his family members were shown to have surplus agricultural land at Beenawas and Kaparda more particularly, in the landed property belonging to the Salt Company.

As per the inquiry report, Bheem Singh could retain certain portions of the lands and by filing a Ceiling Appeal, he challenged the Order of the Authorized Officer for acquiring a piece of land which according to him was non-irrigated and thus could not have been considered as surplus land. His Appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector and this was challenged before the Board of Revenue which disposed of the Review Appeal. More than 6 years later, the Authorized Officer was directed by the State Government to re-open the ceiling proceedings against Bheem Singh and his family. Accordingly, the Tehsildar was directed to take possession over the land and this decision was approved in the Review Petition which was dismissed by the Board.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, said, “In our opinion, the writ Court committed a serious error of records in refusing to take note of the plea of limitation raised on behalf of the appellants and proceeded to examine the matter on merits which was not permissible in the face of the bar under section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Ceiling Act.”

The Court added that the legislative intention to prevent escapement or avoidance of the ceiling laws by a landholder is further manifest under Section 17 which provides that it shall not be lawful for any person to acquire by purchase, gift, mortgage, assignment, lease, surrender, devolution, bequest or otherwise any land so as to affect and increase the extent of his holding over the ceiling area applicable to him on and from the commencement of the Rajasthan Ceiling Act, subject to the other provisions contained under Section 17.

“… the State of Rajasthan shall have an accrued or vested right to the excess land as available on the appointed date and the substantive rights of the State of Rajasthan must be protected but the State Government cannot exercise the power under section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Ceiling Act after lapse of the period of limitation purportedly in the exercise of power of protecting the State’s interest”, it held.

Moreover, the Court observed that most of the times the plea of limitation turns out to be a mixed question of law and fact but where the factual basis has been determined, the High Court should exercise its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

“The law is quite well-settled that the writ Court can entertain a plea based on pure question of law and it is not necessary that such a ground is specifically pleaded by the aggrieved party provided there was sufficient pleadings in that regard and a fair opportunity was given to the opposite party to meet such a ground of challenge”, it further noted.

The Court was of the view that, while the Writs are directed against persons, authorities or the State, the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is intended to ensure that the subordinate Courts and Tribunals act within the limits of their authority and according to law.

“It would be really too hyper-technical an approach to assume that the order passed by the statutory authorities under the Rajasthan Ceiling Act can only be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India”, it added.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the Order of the State Government for re-opening the Final Settlement Order was without jurisdiction and palpably wrong.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Special Appeals.

Cause Title- Raghvendra Singh & Anr. v. The Board of Revenue & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:44345-DB)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Satya Prakash Sharma, Abhimanyu Khatri, D.S. Rajvi, and Vikas Joshi.

Respondents: AAG S.S. Ladrecha and Advocate Ravindra Jala.

Click here to read/download the Judgment