Case: Natha Singh &amp; Ors Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab &amp; Ors

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 appellantsfacts 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 3/4 units of land in village Malout, 53 standard acres and 5 1/2 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 ofthe Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act declared an area of 63 standard acres and 1 1/4 units out of the aforesaid land aggregating 93 standard acres and 1 1/4 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 bythe 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 133(1) (a) of the Constitution.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 2(8) 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.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 A.D.E. and F. and its inclusion in the record and has emphasized that the aforesaid documents which are relevant an d necessary for disposal of the appeal should be allowed to be produced.

Court's reasoning:
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 thefar 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 theCode 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. Thetrue 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.(See Arjun Singh Alias Puran v. Kartar Singh and Ors.(1). 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 thealso 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.