1976 (3) TMI 234 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed in Land Dispute Case

The appeal against the order dismissing the writ petition challenging the declaration of surplus land was unsuccessful. The High Court upheld the revenue ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether a High Court, in proceedings under Article 226, may dismiss a writ petition in limine where the challenge to revenue authorities' orders primarily raises disputed questions of fact already concurrently decided by those authorities. 1.2 Whether entries in khasra girdawaries and related revenue records (including Roznamcha Waqaiti) are admissible and reliable for establishing tenant status where the revenue authorities have found those records tampered with. 1.3 What the evidentiary requirement is for establishing tenant status under the Punjab Tenancy framework - specifically whether payment of rent or evidence of a contract is essential to constitute a tenant for purposes of excluding permissible area from surplus assessment. 1.4 Whether land recorded as banjar (banjar qadim or banjar jadid) must be excluded from computation of 'land' for surplus assessment, and what burden and proof are required to establish such exclusion. 1.5 Whether an appellate court (or this Court) should admit additional documentary evidence in the exercise of its discretionary power, and the criteria governing such admission (Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and relevant precedents). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1.1 - Scope of Article 226 writ review of concurrent findings of fact Legal framework: The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not an appellate re-hearing of disputed facts; it will not ordinarily re-examine or disturb findings of fact by inferior courts/tribunals absent an error of law. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction does not permit factual re-appraisal equivalent to an appeal (general common law principle relied on by the Court). Interpretation and reasoning: Where revenue authorities have concurrently examined evidence and arrived at findings (including findings of tampering), the High Court was not justified in substituting its own factual conclusions. The petition raised primarily factual disputes which did not disclose any illegality, perversity or error of law warranting constitutional interference. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - High Court properly dismissed in limine where challenge only sought re-examination of concurrent factual findings without any demonstrated error of law. Conclusions: Writ remedy was rightly refused on this ground; no interference with concurrent fact findings was warranted. Cross-reference: See Issues 1.2 and 1.3 where factual findings about records and tenancy were key to outcome. Issue 1.2 - Admissibility and reliability of revenue records when found tampered with Legal framework: Revenue records (khasra girdawaries, roznamcha) are ordinarily relevant evidence of cultivation/possession; their probative value depends on authenticity and freedom from tampering. Precedent Treatment: The Court treated findings of tampering by revenue authorities as decisive to exclude reliance on such records; established approach to reject tampered records. Interpretation and reasoning: Collector and Commissioner concurrently found khasra entries tampered by revenue staff in collusion with claimants. The Court held it unsafe to rely on such records. No authenticated copy of Roznamcha Waqaiti was placed on record or relied upon at earlier stages; reliance on it before the Court was an afterthought and therefore inadmissible. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Tampering findings negate reliance on the impugned revenue entries; unauthenticated subsequent reliance on other revenue registers will not cure the defect. Conclusions: Revenue entries found tampered with cannot support the appellants' claims; absence of authenticated Roznamcha Waqaiti corroboration concluded against the claimants. Issue 1.3 - Evidentiary standard for establishing tenant status (rent/contract requirement) Legal framework: To be recognized as tenants under the relevant tenancy law, persons cultivating land of another must demonstrate tenancy, normally by payment of rent or contractual arrangements establishing a tenancy relationship. Precedent Treatment: The Collector's finding that no rent was paid, and no material established a contract exempting liability to pay rent, was upheld. Interpretation and reasoning: Even if khasra entries were accepted at face value, they did not show payment of rent. In absence of rent payment or material showing a contractual arrangement, the persons in possession could not be characterized as tenants for the purpose of excluding land from the surplus pool. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Proof of rent payment or contractual tenancy is necessary to establish tenancy for permissible-area exclusion; absence of such proof defeats tenant claim. Conclusions: The claimants failed to discharge the burden of proving tenant status; the revenue authorities' adverse factual conclusion on this point stands. Issue 1.4 - Claim and proof for exclusion of banjar land from land assessment Legal framework: Land claimed to be banjar (ancient or recent) falls outside the definition of 'land' for assessment only if the owner proves that, at the relevant date, it was not put to any agricultural or ancillary purpose and was unused for pasture or similar uses. Precedent Treatment: The Collector's examination of records found no land falling within the banjar category; the Commissioner rejected a narrow plea limited to a particular khasra after finding it not banjar in nature. Interpretation and reasoning: The burden rests on the landowner to prove a banjar status by acceptable evidence. No such proof was furnished; the plea was either not raised sufficiently at earlier stages or was examined and dismissed on record evidence. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Without affirmative proof that land was unused and fell within the statutory definition of banjar, it cannot be excluded when calculating permissible or surplus area. Conclusions: The banjar exclusion claim failed for want of requisite proof and proper pleading before the revenue authorities; no error of law found. Issue 1.5 - Admission of additional evidence on appeal (Order 41, Rule 27 CPC principles) Legal framework: The appellate court's discretion to admit additional evidence is judicial and limited by Order 41, Rule 27 CPC; admission must satisfy established tests and cannot be used to fill gaps where the judgment can be pronounced on existing materials. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied the test from precedent that the appellate court should be able to pronounce judgment on materials already before it; Arjun Singh v. Kartar Singh cited as governing authority for the test. Interpretation and reasoning: The application for additional documentary evidence sought largely the same revenue records already found spurious by lower authorities. There was no lacuna or obscurity in the record preventing adjudication; the prayer appeared to be an attempt to shore up gaps using documents whose authenticity was doubted. The Court therefore refused to admit additional evidence. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Additional evidence should not be admitted where the appellate court can render judgment on the materials before it and where the additional material is aimed at remedying weaknesses from disputed or discredited records; such admission would be an improper exercise of discretion. Conclusions: The application for additional evidence was properly rejected; the appeal was decided on existing record without necessity to admit further documents. Final Disposition (conclusion linked to issues): The Court concluded that no error of law vitiated the revenue orders; concurrent factual findings (tampering, absence of rent/contract, absence of proven banjar) were upheld; the High Court's dismissal in limine was justified and the appellate application for additional evidence was correctly refused under governing principles.