Law:

Section:

Writ-Certiorari-Error on face of record-Against judicial form and procedure and resulting in miscarriage of justice-Quashed by writ of certiorari-(Court exercising writ jurisdiction not a Court of appeal or Revision).  JUDGMENT   MURSHED, J.-The petitioners, Hazrat Ali, Abbas Dhali, Syed Emamul Hossain and Umar Ali along with some others claim to be the owners in possession of a cattle market at Jhikargacha, popularly known as the Jhikargacha Gohata. The said Hat which is held once a week is situated in plots Nos. 330, 321 and 321 appertaining to khatians Nos. 842, 144 and 938, respectively, of mouza Purandarpur within Police-Station Jhikargacha in the District of Jessore. The petitioners have stated that they are not rent-receivers within the meaning of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, (hereinafter called the Act). In the course of revisional settlement in pur suance of the Act the said plots upon which the above-mentioned Hat is situated were recorded in the names of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Thereupon the petitioner filed an objection petition which was allowed by the relevant authority and their names were substituted in the settlement record in place of the names of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. As against the order which allowed the petitioners objection, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal which was heard and disposed by respondent No. 3, Mr. S. M. Rehman, Assistant Settlement Officer and Survey Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Jessore. In the said appeal the petitioners as well as a number of other persons were made respondents. At present we are only concerned with the petitioner. The said respondent No. 3, the Appellate Authority under the Act, dis posed of the appeal and in the course of the order he has observed as follows: ---   "Regarding the issue as to whether the respondents are rent -receivers or not the matter has already been adjudicated in the aforesaid title suit. In view of the decision of the Civil Court I have nothing to say in this. The appellant also does not prove this point never produced any paper to show that the respondents are rent receivers. The next point is whether the disputed…