MAHIPAT SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A broad brush fundamental 'constitutional backdrop will help delineate the pristinely forensic controversy, in the matter of scope of writ jurisdiction of this Court. One of the fundamental principles in regard to the issuing of writ of certiorari is that it can be availed of only to remove or adjudicate on the validity of judicial acts, which expression includes the exercise of quasi judicial functions by administrative bodies or other authorities or persons in contrast to purely ministerial acts. The second essential feature of this writ is that the control exercised through it is not appellate but supervisory. In granting writ of certiorari, the superior court does not review or reweight the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It merely demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction on polpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views or those of the inferior tribunal.

(2.) MERE formal or technical error, even though of law, will not however be sufficient to attract extra ordinary jurisdiction under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Where the errors cannot be said to be errors of law, apparent on the face of the record, but they are merely errors in appreciation of documentary evidence or affidavits, errors in drawing inferences or commission to draw inference, or in other words, errors which a court sitting as a court of appeal only could have examined, there is no case for the exercise of such jurisdiction.

(3.) A relief is sought in this writ petition for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to the effect that the order dated 29 10. 1976 passed by the Board of Revenue so far as it adversely affects the petitioners properties being Khasra Nos. 368, 383, part of 384 & 386 be quashed and the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner dated 27. 11. 1958 be restored, in full.