MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE AND 2 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the cancellation of a land lease granted to the petitioner under a fifteen-year lease scheme. The core legal question was whether the Revenue Authorities' finding of fact—that the petitioner was not an actual cultivator and had manipulated revenue records to secure the lease—could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The Collector had cancelled the lease upon finding the petitioner was a Chaukidar, not a cultivator, and that the Khasra Girdawari entries were forged. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the forgery and the petitioner's status. The Court affirmed that findings of fact by Revenue Authorities, especially when supported by the original record, are generally beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court established that the presumption of correctness attached to a Jamabandi entry is rebutted when evidence demonstrates that the underlying Khasra Girdawari entries were forged, and no premium can be granted to a beneficiary of forgery.
- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by Revenue Authorities regarding the forgery of revenue records in a writ petition?
- Does the presumption of correctness attached to a Jamabandi entry persist when the underlying Khasra Girdawari entries are proven to be forged?
- Is a person who is not an actual cultivator entitled to a lease under a scheme specifically reserved for genuine cultivators?
ORDER
1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition are that on 24-4-1971 the petitioner was allotted the land in dispute under a fifteen years lease scheme. The eligibility for the grant of lease under this scheme was that the applicant was an actual cultivator of land during the harvests, namely Kharif 1969, to Kharif 1970. The grant in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Collector vide his order dated 23-6-1976 on the ground that the petitioner was not such a cultivator and the entry in the Khasra Girdawari showing him as cultivator had been manipulated by the revenue staff unlawfully and that the petitioner was, in fact, a Chaukidar working at Sikhanwali quarry. In appeal the Commissioner set aside the order on technical ground and remanded the case, but the Collector, on remand, maintained the cancellation of the grant made in favour of the petitioner. In further appeal before the Additional Commis--sioner, the petitioner succeeded, but that order was, in second appeal before the Board of Revenue, reversed and the order of the Collector, canceling the grant, was maintained, vide order dated 15-1-1980.
2. We find from the impugned judgment of the High Court that the learned Single Judge not only found that it was not open to him to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Revenue Authorities on the question of forgery, but took pains to summon the original record to satisfy himself as to the correctness of this finding. In dealing with this matter the learned Judge observed as follows:- "First of all, it may be noted that a finding of fact has been given by the Revenue Authorities regarding the entry. The decision of the Collector that the entries in Khasra Girdawan is a foregary has been confirmed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. This finding of fact cannot be challenged in a writ petition. 1t may also be observed that the original record produced in Court today sufficiently testifies to the correctness of the finding. The record also shows that the petitioner was mentioned as being in occupation of a piece of land along with the owner only for the period of 1969-70. There is no entry of his possession either before or after that period. There is no corresponding entry in the Roznamcha Waqiati. This has also been shown that the petitioner was working as a Chowkidar in the Sikhanwali quarry. Considering these facts one does not have to go far to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was not a cultivator. Since he was not a cultivator he was not entitled to the lease of land which was meant only for genuine cultivators. The action taken by the Collector which was subsequently confirmed by the learned Member Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in law and no objection can be taken to it. A forgery is a forgery and no premium can be given to a forgery or its beneficiary."
3. Before us, the limited contention that was raised in support of this petition was that the Jamabandi for the year 1969-70 did show the petitioner as cultivator. This Jamabandi was not relied upon by the petitioner in the high Court Furthermore, the question of fact to be determined by the competent authority was whether the petitioner was in cultivating possession of land as a tenant at a particular point of time, which could be answered more appropriately by contemporaneous document, Khasra Girdawari given otherwise, the presumption as to correctness of the Jamabandi entry stood rebutted by the evidence of forgery in the relevant Khasra Girdawari.
4. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.