Civil Appeal No 1308 of 1968
From the order dated 1st May 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Writ No 707 of 1967
621 Hardyal Hardy Naunit Lal and Miss Lalita Kohli for the appellants
O P Sharma and P N Puri for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH J
This appeal by certificate under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution of India granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is directed against its order dated May 1 1967 dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the appellants herein
The facts giving rise to this appeal are Natha Singh appellant No 1 herein was recorded in revenue records as land owner in respect of 39 standard acres and 9 34 units of land in village Malout 53 standard acres and 5 12 units in village Kanamgarh and 4 standard acres and 2 units in village Bhagwanpur
By his order dated July 5 1959 the then Collector Ferozepore acting under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act  declared an area of 63 standard acres and 1 14 units out of the aforesaid land aggregating 93 standard acres and 1 14 units as surplus in the hands of Natha Singh
Rajinder Singh and Jarnail Singh appellants Nos 2 and 3 herein who are the sons of appellant No 1 went up in appeal against the said order of the Collector to the Commissioner Jullundur Division who vide his order dated July 20 1965 allowed the appeal set aside the aforesaid order of the Collector and remanded the case for fresh determination of the Surplus Area After re examination of the case on remand the Collector Ferozepore vide his order dated December 20 1965 overruled the plea raised by appellants Nos 2 and 3 that the area comprised in khasra Nos 296 297 517 519 285 293 and 206 which was in their cultivating possession as tenants under appellant No 1 before the commencement of the Act should be treated Tenants Permissible Area  and excluded from the surplus pool and held that the entries in khasra girdawaries on which the claim of the said appellants was grounded could not be relied upon as they had been tampered with
The Collector further held that even taking the entries at their face value appellants Nos 2 and 3 could not be treated tenants as contemplated by the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 Act XVI of 1887 as they were not paying any rent to appellant No 1
The Collector also overruled the plea raised by appellant No 1 that there was some banjar  land which had to be excluded while reckoning the permissible area
Dissatisfied with this order the appellants preferred an appeal to the Commissioner Jullundur Division who by his order dated November 7 1966 dismissed the same and upheld the aforesaid order of the Collector Ferozepore
Aggrieved by these orders the appellants took the matter in revision to the Financial Commissioner Taxation Punjab who also by his order dated March 3 1967 affirmed the aforesaid orders of the Collector Ferozepore and Commissioner Jullundur Division
All these orders were challenged by the appellants before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but the same as already stated was dismissed in limine
The High Court however granted a certificate to the appellants under Article 1331 a of the Constitution
622 Appearing in support of the appeal Mr Hardayal Hardy has contended that the writ petition filed by the appellants could not in the facts and circumstances of the case be dismissed in limine by the High Court
Elaborating by his submission the learned counsel has urged that the orders passed by the revenue authorities could not be sustained as they did not while computing the Surplus Area  leave out the permissible area which even according to the khasra girdawaries and Roznamcha Waqaiti which is maintained for the purpose of recording changes in cultivation was being cultivated by appellants Nos 2 and 3 as tenants of appellant No 1 since 1951 52 that 30 bighas of land which was recorded as banjar  at the time of the commencement of the Act and did not fall within the definition of land as contained in section 28 of the Act had not been taken into account while evaluating and assessing the Surplus Area and that appellants Nos 2 and 3 were not afforded proper and adequate opportunity by the Collector to prove the claim put forth by them
Mr Hardayal Hardy has in conclusion drawn our attention to the application made by the appellants for permission to adduce additional documentary evidence in the form of khasra girdawaries for the years 1952 to 1960 the grounds of appeal preferred by the appellants before the Commissioner the grounds of revision filed by them before the Financial Commissioner the depositions of appellant No 1 and Gurcharan Singh Patwari and forms ADE and F and its inclusion in the record and has emphasized that the aforesaid documents which are relevant and necessary for disposal of the appeal should be allowed to be produced
With regard to the first contention advanced on behalf of the appellants it is sufficient to observe that it has been time and again observed by this Court that in dealing with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction of an appellate court and cannot re examine or disturb the findings of fact arrived at by an inferior court or a tribunal in the absence of any error of law
So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants based on the revenue record is concerned it may be remarked that it has been concurrently found by the Collector and the Commissioner who examined the original khasra girdawaries that they had been tampered with by the revenue staff in collusion with the appellants
In the circumstances it would not be safe to place any reliance on them
The reliance sought to be placed on Roznamcha Waqaiti  is also an after thought
No authenticated copy of the Roznamcha Waqaiti  with reference to which we are invited to verify the entries in the khasra girdawaries has been included in the record
It is also significant that no reliance either before the Collector or before the Commissioner or even before the Financial Commissioner seems to have been placed upon the Roznamcha Waqaiti 
It is also to be noted that even in the application for leave to adduce additional evidence no mention has been made of any entry in Roznamcha Waqaiti 
Even if the entries in khasra girdawaries are treated as genuine they can be of little 623 assistance to the appellants as they do not at all as observed by the Collector appear to show that any rent was being paid by the appellants Nos 2 and 3 to appellant No 1
In the absence of payment of rent or in the absence of material to show that there was a contract between appellant No 1 and appellants Nos 2 and 3 absolving the latter of the liability to pay rent it is difficult to uphold the claim of appellants Nos 2 and 3 that they were tenants of appellant No 1
So far as the claim regarding banjar  land is concerned it would suffice to say that the Collector who examined the revenue record found that there was no land which fell within that category
It cannot be disputed that a land owner who wishes to claim the benefit of the exclusion of banjar qadim  or banjar jadid  land from the purview of land has to prove that it was not at the relevant date being put to any agricultural purpose or a purpose subservient to agriculture or used for pasture
No such proof seems to have been adduced in the instant case
It is also important to note that even before the Commissioner the appellant did not plead that any banjar  land was not left out of consideration while assessing the Surplus Area 
All that was urged before the Commissioner was that the land comprised in khasra No 864 of village Malout had not been left out of account although it was banjar
The Commissioner repelled this plea as he found from the examination of the record that the area comprised in the said khasra number was Chair Pumkin Sarak  which had not been taken into account while assessing the Surplus Area of appellant No 1
The contention raised on behalf of the appellants that they were not allowed an opportunity of establishing their claim cannot also be countenanced
There is nothing on the record to indicate that the appellants were denied opportunity to prove their case
The Financial Commissioner has categorically found that appellants Nos 1 and 2 had full opportunity to place on record their evidence to establish that they were cultivating the land of their father as his tenants and that they did not avail of that opportunity by placing any material on the record to show that or that there was a private partition as sought to be urged by them before him
In view of the foregoing reasons we are satisfied that the orders passed by the revenue authorities did not suffer from any error of law so as to warrant interference in writ proceedings and the High Court was justified in dismissing in limine that writ petition preferred by the appellants
So far as the application of the appellants for additional evidence is concerned it cannot be allowed in view of the well settled principles of law that the discretion given to the appellate court to receive and admit additional evidence is not an arbitrary one but is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitations specified in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure
If the additional evidence is allowed to be adduced contrary to the principles governing the reception of such evidence it will be a case of improper exercise of discretion and the additional evidence so brought on the record will have to be ignored
The true test to be applied in dealing with applications for additional 624 evidence is whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced
See Arjun Singh Alias Puran vs Kartar Singh and Ors1
In the instant case we have not been able to experience any difficulty in rendering the judgment on the material already before us
Instead we feel that the prayer for adducing additional evidence has been made merely to fill up gaps on the basis of some revenue record which has been found by the Collector and the Commissioner to the spurious
We also do not find any other substantial reason to accede to the request of the appellants to allow them to adduce additional evidence
There is no inherent lacuna or obscurity which we require to be filled up or removed to be able to pronounce judgment
The application of the appellants is accordingly rejected
In the result we do not find any merit in this appeal which is also hereby dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs
MR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Appellant Natha Singh was recorded as a land owner in revenue records
Under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 the Collector Ferozepore declared an area of 63 standard acres and 4 units as surplus land in his hands
The sons of Natha Singh appealed to the Commissioner Jullundur division who remanded the case for fresh determination of surplus area
On a re examination of facts the Collector Ferozepure overruled the pleas of the appellants
Their appeal to the Commissioner Jullundur division and a further revision petition to the Financial Commissioner Taxation Punjab were also dismissed
All these orders were challenged before the High Court under article 226
The High Court dismissed the matter in limine but granted a certificate under article 1331a
The appellants contended before this Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court could not dismiss the writ petition in limine as the revenue authorities had wrongly computed the surplus area 
They further contended that appellants No 2 and 3 were not afforded proper and adequate opportunity by the Collector to prove their claims
The appellants also applied for permission to adduce additional documentary evidence
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD 1 In dealing with a petition under article 226 of the Constitution the High Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction of an appellate court and cannot re examine or disturb the findings of fact arrived at by an inferior Court or a tribunal in the absence of an error of law
622E F 2 In the instant case the orders passed by the revenue authorities did not suffer from any error of law so as to warrant interference in writ proceedings and the High Court was justified in dismissing in limine the writ petition preferred by the appellants
623F 3 The application of the appellants for additional evidence cannot be allowed in view of the well established principles of law that the discretion given to the appellate court to receive and admit additional evidence is not an arbitrary one but is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitations specified in order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The true test to be applied in dealing with applications for additional evidence is whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced
623G H 624A Arjun Singh alias Puran vs Kartar Singh  Ors  referred to