1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.294 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.2565 of 2007 (Decided) (Gajanan Manohar Lande v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, and others) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for Appellants. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for R- 1 and 2. Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for R- 4. CORAM : A.P. Deshpande & R.C. Chavan, JJ. DATE : 10th January, 2008 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the present appellant, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. The appellant is an elected member of the Gram Panchayat. A complaint was filed by the respondent against the appellant under Section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 contending therein that the appellant has incurred a disqualification on account of non-payment of taxes. Before the Collector, the present appellant filed a reply, which does not whisper anything about the partition between co-parceners of joint family. The Collector has held that the appellant incurred a disqualification. In an appeal filed by the appellant, for the first time a case of oral partition 2 is sought to be made out. The averments in that regard are to be found in para 5 of the memo of appeal. At a later point of time a document is introduced, which is an unregistered partition-deed and for the first time before the appellate authority, it was tried to be canvassed that there is a severance of status of joint family. The Commissioner concurring with the view taken by the Collector, dismissed the appeal. A writ petition came to be filed, wherein this Court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for consideration of the said document of partition, as the same was not at all considered. The Commissioner allowed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, a writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has considered the said document and the relevant observations are to the effect that the document was never acted upon and the property was not mutated in the revenue records. The learned Single Judge has found that the document of partition is an afterthought, meaning thereby that the same has been got up with a view to avoid disqualification under Section 41(h) of the Act. We are not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge rejected the partition-deed solely on the ground that it is an unregistered document. The document has been considered for colateral purpose of finding out whether there was a severance of status of joint family, and after considering the same, the case of appellant of not having any right, title, or interest in House No.1113 has been rejected. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court, which go to hold that the High Court in exercise of certiorary jurisdiction cannot correct errors in appreciation of documentary evidence or errors in drawing inferences. The judgments relied upon are (1) T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, reported at AIR 1954 SC 440, (2) Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, reported at AIR 1960 SC 1168, and Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, reported at (2004) 3 SCC 682. It is a settled position in law that pulpable and gross errors committed by the authorities can be corrected in certiorary jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge being of the view that the impugned order of the Commissioner suffers from error apparent on record, he quashed and set aside the said order. Perused the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. The same does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pdl