B.K. MUNIRAJU versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 992 · Decided: 15-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2008] 2 S.C.R. 992 
B.K. MUNIRAJU 
II. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2008 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Art. 226 - Wiit jurisdiction - Writ of certiorari - Issuance 
C of - Scope - Discussed. 
D 
Art.227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - Exercise of- Scope 
- Discussed. 
Deeds and Documents: 
Nature of document -
Determination of -
Held: 
Document to be read as a whole - Recitals of the document 
to be seen and not the title. 
After coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled 
E Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of 
Certain Lands) Act, 1978, Appellant filed application before 
Respondent 
No.2-authority 
viz. 
the Assistant 
Commissioner for cancellation of the purported sale deed 
made by his grandfather in respect of the land in question· 
F in favour of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and for restoration 
of the said land under the provisions of the said Act. 
According to the Appellant, the land in question was 
granted under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules and 
hence could not have been alienated in violation of the 
G condition governing the grant. In this regard a document 
titled "Certificate of Grant/Saguvali Chit" was filed. The 
Assistant Commissioner however held that the said land 
was not a "granted land" but was purchased by the 
grandfather of Appellant in public auction and hence did 
H 
992 
t-
' 
B.K. MUNI RAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
993 
-).. 
not attract the provisions of s.4 of the Act. Respondent A 
No.3-appellate authority viz. the Deputy Commissioner 
upheld the decision of the Assistant Commissioner. 
Appellant filed writ petition praying for quashing of the 
orders of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by issuance of 
certiorari. High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence B 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. A writ of Certiorari can only be issued in 
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction which is different c 
from appellate jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction extends 
only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts 
or tribunals or authorities in excess of their jurisdiction 
or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested 
in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise D 
of their jurisdiction causing grave mis-carriage of justice. 
In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior 
tribunal or authority, a writ of Certiorari can be issued only 
if in recording such a finding, the tribunal/authority has 
acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has 
E 
refused to admit an admissible evidence, or if the finding 
is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such 
cases the error amounts to an error of law. A pure error of 
fact, however grave, cannot be corrected by a writ. 
[Para 14] [1002-A, 8, C, D] 
~ ") 
1.2. Whether it is a writ of Certiorari or the exercise of 
F 
supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere 
errors of fact or of law unless: (i) the error is manifest and 
apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it 
is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the G 
provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure 
)-
of justice has occasioned thereby. The High Court in 
exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not 
convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-
appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors H 
~ 
994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008]2 S.C.R. 
A 
in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or 
-'-
technical character. The exercise of jurisdiction under 
Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down 
in a straight jacket formula or rigid rules. Though the 
power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will 
B be .governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience 
enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of 
the judge. [Para 15] [1002-G; 1003-A, 8, C] 
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. (2003) 6 
sec 675 - relied on. 
c 
2.1. Merely because the document in question has 
been styled or titled as "Certificate of Grant", it cannot be 
construed that the land was a "granted land" attracting 
the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and 
D Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain 
Lands) Act, 1978 and the Rules. [Para 13] [1001-E] 
2.2. In order to know the real nature of a document, 
..... 
one has to look into its recitals and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.