LAWS(APH)-1962-12-18

REDDI CHINA PAIDAYYA Vs. RUDRABHATLA MURALIDHAR AND OTHERS

Decided On December 14, 1962
REDDI CHINA PAIDAYYA Appellant
V/S
Rudrabhatla Muralidhar And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P. No. 1874 of 1960 is filed by the tenant to set aside the order of the Dist. Judge and Estate Abolition Tribunal, Visakhaptanam in T.A.S. No. 10 of 1958 refusing to issue a patta in his favour under Section 11 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948), hereinafter referred to as "the Act." W.P. No. 646/60 is filed by the tenants to quash the order of the Sub-Collector, Vizianagaram in CMA. No. 37 of 1958.

(2.) Before dealing with the facts of the case, I wish to refer to three decisions of the Supreme Court as to the powers conferred upon this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Sinha J. (as he then was) held in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division, Assam, 1858 S.C.J. 798 that it is clear from an examination of the authorities of the Supreme Court as also of the courts in England, that one of the grounds on which the jurisdiction of the High Court on certiorari may be invoked, is an error of law apparent on the face of the record and not every error either of law or fact, which can be corrected by a superior court, in exercise of its statutory powers as a court of appeal or revision. The learned Judge pointed out that so far as he knew, it has never been contended before the Supreme Court that an error of fact, even though apparent on the face of the record could be a ground for interference by the Court exercising its writ jurisdiction. The learned Judge added that no ruling was brought to his notice in support of the proposition that the Court, exercising its powers under Art 226 of the Constitution, could quash an order of an inferior Tribunal, on the ground of a mistake of fact apparent on the face of the record. Dealing with the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution, the learned Judge referred to a passage from the case of Waryam Singh and Another v. Amarnath And Another, 1954 S.C.J. 290. The observations are as follows:-

(3.) He wound up in the following terms: