JAGANNATH SAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF BHAGALPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has applied under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Praying that an order passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division, dated the 6th May 1969, a copy of which has been given as Annexure 5, may be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. Respondent No. 4 of this application had filed an eviction case before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, which was numbered as R. E. Case No. 347 of 1967-68, praying, that, the present writ petitioner may be evicted from plot No. 467 and for delivery of possession of this land. By order, dated the 7th September 1968, the eviction case was allowed. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed an appeal, which was heard by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Dumka, and by order, dated the 30th November 1968, the appeal was allowed and the Sub-Divisional Officer's order was set aside. Respondent No. 4 of this writ application preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division and by the impugned order, dated the 6th May 1969, the appeal has been allowed and the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner has been reversed. In the result, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, dated the 7th, September 1968 has been restored.

(3.) The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect, that in a second appeal the Commissioner of the Bhagalpur Division could not have arrived at contrary conclusions of facts, differing from the findings of the Additional Deputy Commissioner. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant provisions of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, which are Sections 57. 58 and 59 thereof. The provision for hearing second appeals by the Commissioner of a Division is contained in Section 58 (b), There is no direct restriction in Section 58 which inhibits the Commissioner of a Division from arriving at his own conclusions of facts, differing from the findings of the first Court of appeal. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that for the purpose of hearing appeals in Santal Parganas the Commissioner of the Bhagalpur Division is equivalent to the High Court and, therefore, the Commissioner cannot interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the first Court of appeal. We do not think, that, the contention is sound. So far as the High Courts are concerned, there are provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure governing second appeals, whereas our attention has not been drawn to any provision in the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. which prevents the appellate Courts from arriving at their own findings of fact. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the main contention raised by the learned counsel to the effect, that, the Commissioner of the Division had no jurisdiction to reverse the conclusions of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner.