Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2001 (M/S) (Old CMWP No. 12729 of 1984) Kunwarjeet Singh Son of Chanan Singh, Resident of village Dabhora, Tahsil Kashipur, District Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar). …… Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital. 3. Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Kashipur, Nainital. … Respondents. Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondents-State. Date December 11, 2009 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31-3-1984 passed by the respondent no. 3 and the order dated 5-9-1984 passed by the respondent no.2 Annexures III & IV to the writ petition respectively. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Prescribed Authority Kashipur issued a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act) against the petitioner in Ceiling Case No. 51/236 of 1974-75. The opposite-party (petitioner) filed objection asserting that he was not possessing any surplus land and that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of two hectares of land as he had an adopted son. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties vide his order dated 6-3-1975 declared 9.44 acres land as surplus in possession of the petitioner. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred Ceiling Appeal No. 324 of 1975, which was ultimately decided by the Civil Judge Nainital by his order dated 10-9-1976 thereby remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority to 2 record a finding only to the extent whether the land in possession of the petitioner is irrigated or unirrigated as per Section 4-A of the Act. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties on merits has held that land measuring 9.14 acres of village Dabhora Musthakan of the petitioner is irrigated land while land to the tune of 2.14 acres is unirrigated. The Prescribed Authority also held that land worth 10 acres belonging to the petitioner in village Dabhora Ahatmali was irrigated while land measuring 8.13 acres was unirrigated. Accordingly, the petitioner held 19.14 acres land irrigated and 10.27 acres land as unirrigated thereby total land in terms of irrigated land in possession of the petitioner comes to 25.99 acres. The Prescribed Authority has held that the petitioner was entitled to hold 18.03 acres irrigated land under the Act, therefore, land measuring 7.96 acres in possession of the petitioner was declared as surplus of Khasra No. 11 of village Dabhora Musthakan by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31-3- 1984 impugned in this writ petition. 3. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred Ceiling Appeal No. 19 of 1984 before the District Judge, Nainital, which was ultimately heard and decided by the I Additional District Judge Nainital by his judgment and order dated 5-9-1984 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material placed before the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the entries of Khasras pertaining to 1374 to 1376 Fasli have been mis-read by the two courts below. Main thrust of his argument is that the entry regarding existence of tube-well as source of irrigation in the Khasra of 1375 Fasli is not in accordance with the Para 95-A of the Land Record Manual as the same has not 3 been encircled in red ink. Therefore, the impugned orders are not tenable in the eye of law. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioner has got land in two villages, namely, Dabhora Musthakan and Dabhora Ahatmali. It is also not disputed that in village Dabhora Musthakan, the petitioner had 11.20 acres of land of Khasra No. 11 and 0.98 acres land of Khasra No. 8 (old Number 7). In village Dabhora Ahatmali, the petitioner has got 18.13 acres land of Khasra No. 2 (old number 1, 2, 5/1 and 23/1 measuring 11.88 acres, 2.91 acres, 2.86 acres and 0.48 acres). 7. For a just decision of the case, a reference to Section 4-A of the Act as well as Rule 3 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 is necessary. Section 4-A of the Act reads as under:- “4-A. Determination of irrigated land.- The prescribed authority shall examine the relevant khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary, and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary and thereupon if the prescribed authority is of opinion:- firstly, (a) that, irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years; by- (i) any canal included in Schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates notified in Notification No. 1579-W/XXIII-62-W-1946, dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time; or (ii) any lift irrigation canal; or (iii) any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid year; or 4 secondly, that irrigation facility became available to any land by a State Irrigation Work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, and at least two crops were grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issue of notice under Section 10; or thirdly, (a) that any land is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) that the class and composition of its soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year; then the Prescribed Authority shall determine such land to be irrigated land for the purposes of this Act. Explanation I.- For the purposes of this section the expression ‘effective command area’ means an area, the farthest field whereof in any direction was irrigated- (a) in any of the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli; or (b) in any agricultural year referred to in the clause ‘secondly’. Explanation II.- The ownership and location of a private irrigation work shall not be relevant for the purpose of this section. Explanation III.- Where sugarcane crop was grown on any land in any of the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli it shall be deemed that two crops were grown on it in any of these years, and that the land is capable of growing two crops in an agricultural year.” 8. Rule 3 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 reads as follows:- “3. In areas where due to consolidation operations or record operations or for any other reason no Khasras were 5 prepared during the years mentioned in Section 4-A, the Prescribed Authority while examining other records may also examine available Khasras for the three latest years preceding the year in which the Khasra was not prepared.” 9. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate or reevaluate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the court concerned. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 675 that “On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.” In the case “Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash” [(2004) 3 S.C.C. page 682], the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph 4 of the judgment that “An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence 6 or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal.” 10. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority would show that record operations were going on in the village during 1378 to 1380 Fasli. Admittedly Khasras for the years 1378 Fasli to 1380 Fasli were not prepared, as has been held by the Prescribed Authority, therefore, as per provision of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules, the Prescribed Authority has taken into consideration the entries made in the Khasras for 1374 to 1376 Falsi. The Prescribed Authority after considering the entries made in the relevant Khasra for 1374 Fasli to 1376 Fasli and on the basis of the evidence led before him, ultimately, came to the conclusion that the petitioner possessed total land worth 25-99 acres in irrigated terms, while the petitioner was entitled to retain total land of 18-03 acres (in irrigated terms), therefore, 7.96 acres land from the holdings of the petitioner was declared surplus by the order dated 31-3-1984. 11. It appears that the learned appellate court has also elaborately re-appreciated the evidence on the parties and while discussing the evidence on record the learned appellate court has observed in its order dated 5-9-1984 as under:- “The extract of Khasra for the year 1374 F, 1375 F and 1376 F of village Dabhora Musthakan Tahsil Kashipur (Ext. Ka. 6) shows on its careful perusal that 9.14 acres of land of Khasra No. 11 of the appellant was irrigated by the tube well in 1375F but one crop was grown. In 1376F. it was irrigated by tube well and two crops were grown. In 1374 F two crops were grown. Thus in view of the provisions of Section 4A of the Act 9.14 acres of land of khasra no. 11 of the appellant is an irrigated land. The extract of Khasra for 1374F, 1375F and 1376F of village Dabhora Ahatmali Tehsil Kashipur, on its careful perusal indicates that 10 acres of land of the appellant bearing khasra no. 1 7 was irrigated in 1376F and a crop of sugar cane was grown. In this way 10 acres of land of the appellant of Khasra no. 1 is irrigated in view of the provisions of Section 4A of the Act referred to above and his rest of the land, i.e., 8.13 acres of land is unirrigated. In view of the provisions of the Act the appellant according to ceiling limit is entitled to hold 18.03 acres irrigated land. The appellant had 19.14 acres irrigated land and 10.27 acres unirrigated land. His whole land in terms of irrigated land comes to 25.99 acres land. He can hold according to the ceiling limit 18.03 acres irrigated land. Thus, 25.99-18.03 = 7.96 acres of land has to be declared surplus which has correctly been declared as surplus by the Prescribed Authority.” 12. It is obvious from a perusal of the entire material placed before this Court that there is concurrent finding of fact that the land measuring 7.96 acres was surplus in possession of the petitioner in irrigated terms. The finding of fact recorded by the two courts below on appreciation of evidence cannot be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction like a court of appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the provisions of para A-95 of the Land Record Manual were not adhered to by the revenue authority, inasmuch as the relevant entries in the Khasra ought to have been double-encircled in red ink. 14. It would suffice to mention that only on account of mere non observance of formalities in the Khasra the evidence on record cannot be thrown out unless the findings recorded by the two courts below are perverse. Moreover, the appellate court has also dealt with the pleas raised in this writ petition and has observed as under:- “The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that entries of the tube well in the relevant Khasra have not been made according to para A-95 of the Land Records Manual. He further argued that Khasra No. 11 is shown to have grown one crop and no 8 sugar cane crop was shown in 1374 F, 1375 F and 1376F and 9.14 acres land of the said Khasra has wrongly been declared as irrigated. I do not agree. The extract of Khasra 1374 F, 1375 F and 1376 F reveals on careful perusal that 9.14 acres of land Khasra No. 11 was irrigated by tube well in 1375F. but one crop was grown and in 1376F. two crops were grown and it was irrigated by tube well. In 1374F. this land had no means of irrigation but two crops were grown. When there is an entry in the relevant khasra regarding the irrigation facility by tube well the mere non-observation of the formalities prescribed by para A-95 of the Land Records Manual would not make the land as unirrigated. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in khasra no. 1, 10 acres land has wrongly been held irrigated. In fact, no tube well is there and sugar cane crop is not grown therein, therefore, 10 acres land of khasra no. 1 of the appellant has wrongly been held to be irrigated. I do not agree because the extract of khasra of village Dabhora Ahatamali for 1374F., 1375F and 1376F. clearly reveals that in 1376F. 10 acres land of khasra no.1 of the appellant was irrigated by tube well and sugar cane crop was grown. Where sugar can crop is grown there would be a clear presumption that the land is capable of growing two crops. Since there is a tube well also in that land in 1376F., thus, it shall be held to be irrigated in any view of the matter.” 15. For the reasons and discussion above I find that both the courts below have elaborately discussed the evidence and there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below which is fully based on evidence on record. Both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact on the basis of the evidence and as per provisions of Section 4-A of the Act read with Rule 3 framed under the Act, referred to above. I do not find any perversity or any manifest error of law in the impugned orders. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. Interim order dated 13-9-1984 is vacated. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP