J. S. VERMA, C. J. - (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. It is a well established principle that a finding of fact cannot be challenged under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the evidence before the inferior court was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the finding as a writ court is not a court of appeal. The in reference is possible only when 'it is shown that in recording the said finding the inferior court had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which had influenced the impugned finding. The same can not be assailed in writ jurisdiction. In one like sentence, it can be said that the jursdiction of High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court, and this limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or question in writ proceedings. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the inferior court, the points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. The matter in hand relates to the proceedings which are pending since 1954 for resumption of the Jagir and the order of Jagir Commissioner of 1958. This matter came up before the Board of Revenue in 1960 and then the earlier writ petition was dismissed in 1961. Thus, the land reforms litigation is having a chequered pendency from 1954 to 1988. A sketch of the primary facts will help resolve the pristinely controversy.
(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. The Jagir of Thikana Kotri in Ladpura Tehsil, District Kota, was resumed on 1st August. 1954 The then Jagirdar, Durga Dan, submitted a list of his private and personal property under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Rules, 1954 (for brevity, 'the Jagir Rules') before the Deputy Collector (Jagirs), Kota on November 9, 1954. Before any decision about these properties mentioned in the aforesaid list, came out, Shri Durga Dan Jagirdar, dies on 24. 7. 1955, and on 6. 5. 1956 Kaviraj Mahipat Singh S/o Durga Dan was brought on record as heir of Shri Durga Dan, being representative. Madho Singh, real son of Jai Singh (brother of Shri Durga Dan) claiming to be adopted son of Shri Durga Dan, Jagirdar, and two widows of Jagirdar Durga Dan, also filed various objections claiming their shares in certain properties. The Deputy Collector (Jagirs) Kota referred the matter to the Jagir Commissioner under Section 23 (2) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for brevity, 'the Act' ). The Jagir Commissioner vide his order dated 12. 1 59 ordered that lands situated in village Vinod Kalan belonged to the objector, Madho Singh while the rest of the properties as claimed by the Jagirdar applicants belonged to them. Aggrieved by this order, both the parties, i. e. the applicants and the objectors went in appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue on 25. 6. 59 rejected both the appeals to the extent that they related to the claims on property of Kavi Raja Durga Dan arising out of his death but partly accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Jagir Commissioner for fresh decision under Section 23 (2) of the Act. It was further directed by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 25. 6. 59, that while making fresh inquiries, the State Government may also be allowed to put in their objections. ;