The Supreme Court in a recent ruling reaffirmed the boundaries of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in re-assessing factual determinations made by specialized tribunals or authorities.
Brief Facts:
The dispute centers on a piece of land identified as Khasra No. 103. The respondent, Khacheru, claimed entitlement to this land, asserting possession of a valid patta (land grant) and contending that the land was erroneously recorded as a pond (Johad) in revenue records due to confusion. Ajay Singh, the appellant, argued that the land was indeed a pond, serving as a water reservoir for villagers, and thus excluded from consolidation schemes under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Ajay Singh contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by re-assessing factual evidence and overturning concurrent findings of the consolidation authorities without identifying any jurisdictional error or perversity in their decisions.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Khacheru maintained that the land was incorrectly recorded as a pond and that he possessed a valid patta. He argued that the High Court was justified in re-evaluating the evidence to rectify the alleged errors in the revenue records.
Observations of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court emphasized that under Article 226, the High Court's jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate. It cannot re-appreciate evidence or overturn factual findings of lower authorities unless there is a clear jurisdictional error or the findings are perverse.
The Court noted that the consolidation authorities had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the land was a pond, and the respondent failed to produce a valid patta. The High Court, by re-assessing the evidence and substituting its own findings, exceeded its jurisdiction.
The bench observed that, “It is a well-established principle that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely.”
Decision of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the orders of the consolidation authorities. It reiterated that the High Court should not act as an appellate authority in such matters and must respect the factual findings of specialized tribunals unless there is a manifest error. The Court also criticized the High Court's casual approach in overturning a permanent injunction granted by the lower authorities, underscoring that such orders should not be revoked without substantial justification.
Case Title: Ajay Singh vs. Khacheru and Ors.
Case No.: SLP (Civil) Nos. 34407-34408 of 2013
Citation: 2025 Latest Caselaw 11 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Advocate for the Petitioners: Dr. Surat Singh, Adv., Dr. Chandresh Jain, Adv, Mr. Shivam Sachdeva, Adv.Mr. Sudhansu Palo, AOR
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. K.L. Janjani, AOR, Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Kailash J. Kashyap, Adv.,Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR
Read judgment @latestlaws.com, click here
Picture Source :
