Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 835 (RAJ)

Jaggo Bai v. Board of Revenue

2008-03-18

M.N.BHANDARI, NARAYAN ROY

body2008
Honble ROY, CJ.—By this appeal a challenge has been made to the judgment passed by the learned Singh Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3178/1997 dated 12.9.1997 2. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that a suit filed by Smt. Bhirawa Bai was decreed and the said order was thereafter upheld by the two appellate Revenue Courts. It was held that the land originally was allotted to Manji Ram husband of plaintiff Smt. Bhirawa Bai; she was having l/4th share in the property. The findings of fact arrived at in the Courts below is concurrent finding of fact and it is matter where all the three Courts below recognized the right of the plaintiff Smt. Bhirawa Bai to the extent of l/4th share in the property in dispute thus precisely on that ground the writ petition so preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the statement of fact recorded in the judgment is not correct inasmuch as the land in dispute was not allotted to Manji Ram but was lastly allotted to Ranjha Ram thus plaintiff non-appellant Smt. Bhirava Bai being the step mother had no succession right in view of the provisions of Hindu Succession, 1956 and precisely on that ground, three orders passed by the Courts below so as the learned Single Judge is being challenged in the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the issue as has been raised in the appeal is no more available to the appellants as finding of fact has been recorded by the three Courts below, therefore this Court while exercising the jurisdiction in appeal cannot sit on those finding of fact when right has otherwise been recognized in favor of plaintiff Smt. Bhirava Bai pursuant to the decision given by the competent authority under the provisions of Displace Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1955"). Our attention has been drawn towards the Rule 76 wherein the procedure in the case of deceased allottees is being dealt with. It is contended that pursuant to the Rules of 1955 the right in favour of plaintiff Smt. Birava Bai was recognized by the authorities and those orders, which are enclosed also with the reply to the appeal, remain unchallenged. It is contended that pursuant to the Rules of 1955 the right in favour of plaintiff Smt. Birava Bai was recognized by the authorities and those orders, which are enclosed also with the reply to the appeal, remain unchallenged. Referring to the finding of Revenue Appellate Authority where this aspect was taken into consideration and it is after dealing with each and every aspect of the matter that judgment was given. The Board of Revenue thereafter maintained the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority holding that not only petitioner is having right under the Rules of 1955 but she was otherwise shown as recorded Khatedar in the mutation entries from 2022 to 2026 and from 2026 to 2036 and thereby l/4th share of Smt. Bhirava Bai was recognized by the Board of Revenue also. 5. In view of the above learned counsel for the respondent submits that appeal filed by the appellant should not be entertained because it is nothing but questioning finding of fact which has already been settled by the three Courts below. 6. We have considered the rival arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and scan the matter carefully. 7. Perusal of the orders passed by the three Courts below reveals that a concurrent finding a fact has been recorded in regard to the rights of plaintiff Smt. Bhirava Bai after taking into consideration all legal and factual aspects and looking to those facts itself, learned Single Judge was of the opinion that it is a case where the right of plaintiff Smt. Bhirava Bai has been recognized by the three Courts below therefore, there is no ground to interfere in those findings. The aforesaid view has been expressed by the learned Single Judge after considering the finding recorded by all the Revenue Courts and now in the light of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. This Court sitting in appeal cannot again enter into the finding of the facts and law already recorded by the Courts below, rather while exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court has limited jurisdiction as held in Para 7 of the said judgment. Ltd. & Anr. This Court sitting in appeal cannot again enter into the finding of the facts and law already recorded by the Courts below, rather while exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court has limited jurisdiction as held in Para 7 of the said judgment. "The supervisory jurisdiction coffered on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purport to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision". 8. Perusal of para 7 quoted above reveals that when the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is confined is only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less of an error of law, thus in view of the parameters laid down by the Honble Apex Court if we see the present matter then we do not even find any error apparent on facts of the record which can now be questioned before this Court. Even otherwise looking to the provisions of Rules of 1995 and the right of plaintiff Smt. Bhiraba Bai recognized therein we do not find that finding of any of the Courts below suffers from any error apparent on the face of records of much error of law, more so when all the Courts below proceeded within its parameters. 9. Even otherwise looking to the provisions of Rules of 1995 and the right of plaintiff Smt. Bhiraba Bai recognized therein we do not find that finding of any of the Courts below suffers from any error apparent on the face of records of much error of law, more so when all the Courts below proceeded within its parameters. 9. It is otherwise a fact that right of Smt. Bhirava Bai were recognized by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in its order dated 20.3.1976 (Annexure-R/3) under the Rules of 1955 and the said order remained unchallenged, thus apart from all other aspects pertaining to the rights of Bhirava Bai, her right under the Rules of 1955 having finally decided and same was also taken as a ground for accepting 1/4 share of Bhirava Bai in property in dispute, hence even on facts there is no error in the order passed by the three revenue Courts. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal so preferred by the appellants deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.