LexNIBARAN CHANDRA BAG ETC. versus MAHENDRA NATH GHUGHU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. NIBARAN CHANDRA BAG ETC. v. MAHENDRA NATH GHUGHU (S . .J. IMAM, N. RA.uonPALA AvvANOAR ancl ]. R. MnnnnJ,KAR, .JJ.) Jlif!h C'Mtl'l-I'rnom· of 811.pen•i.•ion-Interfereiice with concurrent .finding" of Revenue Tribunal.•-Correcti011 of draft rerord of righf,,-Srttlement O,Oice if should maintai11 recorrl of oral evidcnce-lVrst Bengal, E.•tate Acquisition Art, 1%3 (IV.R.l of 1.954), "· 44--Uon.•litution of India Art. 227. Jn the draft record of rights prepared under s. 44, West Reng-al Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the appellant was recorded as a "raiyat.-'' in respect of 1500 bighas of land. The respondent filed objections praying that the appellant be recorded as a tenure holder and the respondent as a lessee under him. The Settlement Officer held that the appellant was a permanent tenure holder and that the respondent was a temporary le~•ce for two years. On appeal the District Judge affirmed these findings. Thereupon the appellant filed a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution before the High Court and the High Court upheld the order of the Settlement Officer relating to the status of the appellant but reversed the portion in favour of the respondent. The appellant c.:intended that the only party interested in challenging the status of the appellant was the Government and it not having done so the entry in the draft record of rights should not have been interfered with. The respondrnt contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction in a petition under Art. 227 to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Settlement Officer and of the District.Judge that the respondent was a temporary lessee. n,1,z, that the respondent had raised an objection to the description of the status of the appellant in the record of rights and the Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to decide the ques- tion of the status of the 1'ppellant. Held, further, that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the findings of the Revenue authorities that the appellant was a tempora•y lessee. In a petition under Art. 227 the High Court wa• not sitting as a court of appeal; it could only consider whether the tribunals had overstepped 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 571 the limits of their jurisdiction and whether the findings were based on n'> material or were otherwise perverse. The orders of the revenue authorities did not suffer from any of these defects. Kagenara Nath Rora v. Commissioner, Hi/l.• Division, ..i,,,,am, [1958] S.C.R. 1240, relied on. The Settlement Officer was wrong in not maintaining any record of the oral evidence adduced before him. Thongh tl•c Rn1es did not require the maintenance of record of the oral evictence, it "·a• implicit in the provision granting an app<"al from the order of tlie Settlement Ofncer, that he should main- tain so1ne record of the oral evidence so that the right of appeal \Vas not nullified. Crvu, APPRLLA'l'E jFRrnnrn'l'ION : Civil Appeals Nos. lO!i & 106 of 1960. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 20, 1957 of the Calcutta High Court. in Civil Revision Case No. 1851 of f!l:ili. N. C. Chatteijee and D. N .. MuH1e1jre, for the Appellant (In C. A. No. lOiJ of HWO) am! Respon- dent (In C. A. No. 106of1960). K. B. Bagchi, S. N. Mukherjee and Sul:mnar Ghose for the Respondent (In C. A. No. 105of1960) and Appellant (In C. A. No. 11)6 of 1960). 1962. November 28. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J.-These two appeals by special leave arise out of a single judgment of the High Court at Calcutta. That judgment was rendered in a petition under Art. 227 filed by the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 105of1960. The proceeding out of which the appeals arise was an application made by Mahenclra Nath Ghu;?;hu (whom we shall refer to as the respondent) before the Assistant Settlement Officer, 24, parganas, 1962 Nihllran Chandra Bag v. Maliendra Nath G'h11gll'I Ay;·angar, J. 19(;2 .1~'ibarrm (,'!imull'a Bag v • .\fuhendra Nath Uhug!tu 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1903] SUPP. objecting to certain entries in a draft Rccor<l-of- rights prepared and puulishcd under the West lkngal Estates Acquisition Act, Hl!i:3 (W. B. I of l!J54) relat- ing to Nibaran Chandra Bag (to be refrned to as the appellant). Section 44 ( l) of that Act cnacts:--- 4-L (I) When a record-of-rights has been prepared or revised, the Revenue Officer sha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.