LexBEANT SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 122 BEANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. November 18, 1976 [M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Constitution of India, Article 226-High Court's rejection of fin(/ings of facts. by departmental authorities, 1vhen justified-Article 136, interference by Supreme Court, rule of practice. The property under dispute was put up for sale at two different auctions by the Ma·naging Officer, Amritsar. The Rehabilitation authorities cancelled the bid of the first auction purchaser Smt. Rup Kaur, holding that she had failed to deposit the sale price in spite of issuing her a registered notice, and at the· second auction the appellant's bid was accepted. In a petition filed under Art. 226, a Single Judge of the High Court found the findings of facts to be erro· neous and the impugned order void, and granted a writ in favour of Smt. Rup Kaur. On appeal, the decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal the Court, HELD : ( 1) The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal to substitute its own judgment for that of the authorities which are empowered to give their decisions, but apart from jurisdictional errors, the High Court may correct errors apparent on the face of the record. An error to be apparent must be one which does not take prolonged arguments to bring it to the surface. The Single· Judge's conclusion that provisions of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons Com- pensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955, had not been complied with, was not erroneous. f123C-D. 126E-Fl S. L. Hegde & Ors. v. M. B. Tirumale [1960] (1) SCR 890, applied Hiralal Kher v. The Chief Settlement Co111111issie11er New Delhi [19611 P.L.R. 560, referred to. (2) It is a settled rule of practice of this Court not to interfere with the· exercise of discretionary powers of High Courts under Art. 226 of the Cons- titution merely because two views are possible upon the facts of a case. For qterference by this Court, the question must involve atleast a matter of public or general importance or the injustice suffered by an individual due to an error of Jaw should be so gross as to touch the c_onscience of this Court in which case it would be deemed to be one of more than private importance. [123E-F] CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDJCTION : Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1969. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated the 22-8-1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 427 of 1968). B. Sen and H. K. Puri, for the appellant S. K. Mehta, P. N. Puri and K. R.Nagaraja, for respondent No. 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by- BEG, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judge- ment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing in limine an appeal against a judgment and order of a llEANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA (Beg, J.) 123 learned single Judge of that Court by which a Writ Petition made A. to the High Court had _been granted. We have been taken through the very detailed judgment of the learned single Judge where all the relevant facts are considered in detail. The questions which have been raised before us are: firstly, whether the learned single Judge was justified in considering the facts of the case and recording certain findings of fact without· having B even the advantage of the record of the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, and other officers who had given certain other findings in favour of the appellant; secondly, whether the learned single Judge's findings of fact are correct; and, thirdly, whether any such apparent error was disclosed in the proceedings of the authorities acting under the Refugees Rehabilitation and Settle- ment Act as to justify interference by the High Court. It was urged C' that a mistake apparent on the face of the record has to be one which does not necessitate delving deep into facts on record to d-k;- cover it after a re-examination of questions of fact which ought to be left to the authorities empowered to give these findings. It is true that the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to substitute its own judgment for that of the authorities which are empowered to give their decisions in such cases. Apart from jurisdictional D· errors, the High Court may correct errors apparent on the face of the record. An error to be apparent must, according to a rough test laid down by this Court in S. L. Hedge & Ors. v. · M. B. Tiru- male(I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.