Rudra Pratap Shukla vs D.D.C & Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 3199 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on : 10.01.2018
 
Delivered on : 11.10.2018
 
Court No. - 34 
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 662 of 1977 
 

 
Petitioner :- Rudra Pratap Shukla 
 
Respondent :- D.D.C & Others 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.P.Srivastava,D.K.Tripathi,J.P.Singh,Pulak Ganguli 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. 
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 27.08.1976 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter to be referred as 'DDC').

2. Dispute relates to Gata No. 27-A plot no. 92/1 area 1 acre, Gata No. 27-B plot no. 92/3 area 0.7 acre and Gata No. 58 plot no. 47/7 area 0.85 acre, respectively, at village Naurangabad, Pargana Kanhaiya Mathu, District Jaunpur.

3. Gata No. 27-A and 27-B were recorded in basic year in the name of Har Govind (now deceased, substituted by his legal heirs respondents no. 2 to 4) and Gata No. 58 was recorded in basic year in the name of Rudra Pratap Shukla, petitioner (now deceased, substituted by his legal heirs). During consolidation proceedings in village Naurangabad, petitioner Rudra Pratap Shukla filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act, 1953') claiming co-tenancy right in Gata NO. 27-A. He stated that property was ancestral tenancy and petitioner had 1/3rd share while Har Govind also had 1/3rd share and Bal Govind, respondent no. 7, had remaining 1/3rd share. Objection further in respect of Gata No. 27-B was raised that it was wrongly recorded in the name of Har Govind. It was part of Abadi and not exclusive bhumidhar of Har Govind. Separate objection was filed by Har Govind claiming tenancy right in Gata No. 58 on the ground of a compromise dated 21.12.1968 arrived between parties in a civil suit.

4. Consolidation Officer (hereinafter to be referred as 'C.O.') vide order dated 11.09.1972 allowed petitioner's claim in respect of Gata No. 27-A and 27-B. He recorded a finding that entry was forged and illegal in respect of plot no. 92/3. He also found share of petitioner to the extent of 1/3rd in plot no. 92/2. Objection of Har Govind was rejected by C.O. in respect of Gata No. 58 and petitioner was held sole tenant in the said land.

5. Har Govind filed appeals before Settlement Officer, Consolidation (hereinafter to be referred as 'SOC') and both appeals of Har Govind were rejected by SOC vide order dated 18.11.1972. Thereafter, revision was filed by Har Govind which has been allowed by DDC vide order dated 27.08.1976. DDC has held that plot no. 92/3 area 0.7 acre was recorded as land of category 12 while parties have raised a claim that it was Abadi, hence, dispute was beyond the jurisdiction of Consolidation Court.

6. The order of DDC has been challenged on the ground that once it was found that entry of category 12 in revenue records in the name of Har Govind was incorrect, same was liable to be corrected else bar under section 49 of Act, 1953 is attracted and entries having been maintained by Consolidation Court cannot be corrected by filing another suit. C.O. as well as SOC both found that area 0.7 acre, out of total area 1.59 acres pertaining to plot no.92 was illegally recorded, inasmuch as, 0.79 acre was recorded as Abadi and remaining 1 acre kept in the name of Har Govind, meaning thereby, 0.7 acre was wrongly recorded in the name of Har Govind and it was either part of 1 acre or 0.59 acre. Similarly, in respect of Gata no. 27-A plot no. 92/1, compromise in Suit No. 700 of 1956 has wrongly been relied as it was not in respect to aforesaid land and could not have operated as res-judicata. In 1347 fasli, plot no. 92/2 was recorded in the name of Bansh Gopal, common ancestor of petitioner, Har Govind and others but in 1361 fasli it was wrongly recorded exclusively in the name of Har Govind though he had only 1/3 share in respect to above plot and thus only 1/3rd share of plot could have been recorded in his name as Bhumidhari, which shows that entry was wrongly made but DDC has failed to appreciate the above fact. Similarly, plot no. 47/7, gata no. 58, was under sole tenancy of petitioner and Har Govind had no share and it was also not subject matter of dispute in civil suit.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Family tree of parties, as shown in order of DDC and not challenged before this Court is as under:

"Girjanand

Vanshgopal

Rudra Pratap Har Govind Bal Govind @ Bal Mukund

Kripa Shanker

Ishnarain Girishnarain Suryanarain Surendranarain

Ramesh Chand Dinesh Chand "

9. Five objections were filed by petitioner, Kripa Shanker, Har Govind etc before C.O. in respect to various properties including disputed one. C.O. formulated seven questions as under:

"1- Whether Kripa Shanker and others are co-tenant in the disputed Khata 19-Kh

2- Whether Har Govind, Balmukund, plaintiffs are co-tenant in the disputed khata 19-kh having 1/3 share as alleged.

3- Whether Musafir, Kishor Prasad and others are the co-tenant, as alleged, over disputed parts.

4- What are the shares of the parties in khata 19-Kh

5- Whether 92/2/0.66, disputed plot, is in Rudra Pratap's khata as alleged.

6- Whether Har Govind is bhumidhar or sirdar over the disputed plot no. 47/7/0.85 as alleged.

7- Whether plot no. 92/3/0.07 is abadi of plaintiff and he is the owner of those trees on it."

10. Issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 pertain to Khata No. 19-Kha in respect whereto Kripa Shanker son of Rudra Pratap had filed objection claiming co-tenancy rights. All the aforesaid issues were answered by C.O. recording following findings:

"The objection of Kripa Shanker has no force and hence he cannot get any right or share in the property of his father, which has already been sold by his father. He is bound by the deeds of his father. Plaintiff has failed to prove private partition by separation of khata by the Lekhpal. The partition is not proved. The issues are decided accordingly."

11. Issue 5 relates to plot no. 92/2. C.O. found that upto 1359 fasli it was recorded in the name of all brothers and there was a mistake in 1361 fasli, hence, it was answered in favour of Rudra Pratap. The issue was returned in affirmation.

12. Issue 6 related to Gata no. 58 over which Har Govind has claimed his share. It was answered in negative. Issue 7 related to plot no. 92/3. C.O. found that there was a mischief of Lekhpal. It was a plot in Abadi hence trees will be covered by ownership provided under Section 26 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Rules framed thereunder. Consequently, C.O. passed following order:

"(i) Plot No. 78/0-33, 81/0-37, 82/0-39, 83/0-19, 86/0-45, 88/0-18, 95/0-55, 96/0-64, 98/0-58, 107/0-17, 108/0-21, 112/0-50, 115/0-61, 116/0-23, 119/0-36, 122/-20, 123/0-25, 127/0-24, 128/0-68, 129/0-41, 146/0-5__, 165/0-40, 166/2/0-31, 174/0-44, 182/0-45, 186/0-49, 187/0-34, 188/0-18, 243/0-80, 150/317/0-29 are plots of village Jokhapur, the dispute is of Naurangabad. This is a clear case of Audi and Khariji, hence ACO should put a ref u/s 3(25) for the correction.

(ii) Plot No. 92/3/0-07 be expunged from the Khata and be entered as Abadi. The ownership shall govern u/r 26 of 2A Rules.

(iii) The total area of 92 be corrected as 1-59 acres only.

(iv) The objection of Har Govind about plot no. 47/7/0-85 is rejected. Entry be kept intact.

(v) The name of Rudra Pratap, Bal Mukund be entered over plot no. 92/2/1-00 as co-tenant and khata be partition 1/3 each.

(vi) The objection of Kripa Shankar in respect of khata no. 19-kh is rejected.

(vii) The name of Har Govind and Bal Mukund SS/o Bans Gopal be included in khata no. 19-kh on 2/3 share and khata be partitioned as under:

Bal Mukund 				1/3
 
Har Govind 					1/3
 
Mist Sirtazi  				1/6
 
Girdhari, Bipat, Malthodhar 		1/6
 
Amaldaramad has made and file be consigned."
 

13. Against the order passed by C.O., four appeals were filed before SOC. Appeal No. 6 was filed by Rudra Pratap Shukla, Appeal No. 7 by Kripa Shanker, Appeal No. 15 by Har Govind and Appeal No. 16 by Musafir. Relevant findings recorded by SOC in its order dated 18.11.1972, while deciding aforesaid appeals, are as under:

^^1& ;g esjh jk; esa fo}ku pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us gjxksfoUn rFkk cky xksfoUn dks osnkjku ds lkFk lg[kkrsnkj xyr ?kksf"kr fd;k gS d`ik'kadj tks :nz izrki dk yM+dk gS] og Hkh ;fn ewy [kkrs esa dksbZ mldk fgLlk gks rks [kkrs ds 'ks"k fgLls esa vius fgLls ds fy, vkifRr dj ldrk gS osnkjku ds fgLls esa mldk vc dksbZ lRo rFkk fgLlk ugha gSA

2& tgka rd xkVk [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected] dk lEcU/k gS vk/kkj o"kZ ds dkxtkr esa xkVk [email protected] :nz izrki ds [kkrs esa ntZ FkkA

3& vkcknh dh vkjkth esa ckx dk bUnzkt gksuk mDr bUnzkt dks xyr o QthZ gksuk Lo;a izek.k gSA vr% bl xkVs dks fo}ku pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us vkcknh dk fgLlk gh lgh ekuk gSA

4& vr% xkVk [email protected] tks vkjEHk ls rhuksa Hkkb;ksa dk Fkk mlesa rhuksa dks fo}ku pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us fgLlk lgh fn;k gS vkSj xkVk [email protected] tks 1348 Qa0 ls :nz izrki ds uke ntZ gSA :nz izrki dh lgh ?kksf"kr fd;k gSA

5& tgka rd xkVk 78 oxSjg dk lEcU/k gS 1362 Q0 dh [krkSuh ls ;g lkfcr gS fd ;g iwjk xzke tks[kiqj dh gSA ekSds ij xzke ukSjaxkckn dh vkjkth ds chp esa gSA xzke [kks[kkiqj dh pdcUnh lekIr gks pqdh gS vkSj xzke ukSjaxkckn dh py jgha gSA pwafd , xksVs xzke ukSjaxkckn dh vkjkth ugha gSaA vr% fo}ku pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds le{k dkuwuh vM+pu gS fd os bUgsa xzke ukSjaxkckn ds ntZ djus dk vkns'k ikfjr ugha dj ldrsA

6& vr% [kkrk 16 ¼[k½ ds xkVk 185 o 189 dks NksM+dj 'ks"k vkjkth ds ckjs esa pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k esa gLr{ksi esa dksbZ vko';d ugha le>rk gwWa xkVk 185] 189 ds oSnkjku eqlkfQj vkfn ds fgLls dh ckcr pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku fd;k tkrk gSA"

"1. In my opinion, the learned Consolidation Officer has wrongly declared Har Govind and Bal Govind to be co-tenure holders (Sah Khatedaar) with Vedaran. Kripa Shankar S/o Rudra Pratap, if he has right to any portion in the original Khata (property), can also raise objection for his share in the remaining portion of the Khata (property). He has now no entitlement and share in the portion of Vedaran.

2. As far as Gata nos. 47/7, 92/2 and 96/3 are concerned, Gata no. 47/7 is recorded in the name of Rudra Pratap in the documents for the base year.

3. The entry of existence of a grove on the property meant for Abadi, itself proves the said entry to be wrong and forged. Hence, the learned Consolidation Officer has rightly considered this Gata to be a part meant for Abadi.

4. Hence, the learned Consolidation Officer has rightly partitioned amongst all the three brothers the Gata no. 92/1 which belonged to them since the beginning; and has rightly declared Gata no. 47/7, recorded to be in the name of Rudra Pratap since the Fasli year 1348, to be belonging to him.

5. As far as Gata no. 78 etc. are concerned, it is, from the Khatauni of Fasli year 1362, proved that they all relate to Jokhpur village and situationally lie in the middle of the territory of Naurangabad village. The consolidation proceedings for Khokhapur village have come to an end, and is going on for the Naurangabad village. Since these Gatas do not constitute lands belonging to Naurangabad village; hence, the Consolidation Officer faces a legal hurdle that he cannot pass an order for recording them to be of Naurangabad village.

6. Hence, I find no necessity to interfere with the order of the Consolidation Officer for the remaining property except Gata nos. 185 and 189 of Khata no. 16 (Kha). For the portion of Vedaran Masafir and others in Gata nos. 185 and 189, the order of the Consolidation Officer is modified to the following extent.

(Translation by Court)

14. SOC therefore, allowed appeal no. 16 and rest appeals were dismissed. Operative part of order of SOC reads as under:

"mijksDrkuqlkj vihy ua0 61 Lohdkj rFkk vihy ua0 6] 7] 15 fujLr dh tkrh gS pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku fd;k tkrk gS fd [kkrk 19&[k ds xkVk [email protected]] [email protected] esa cky xksfoUn gjxksfoUn dk dksbZ fgLlk ugha feysxk bu xkVksa esa eqlkfQj rFkk izlkn dk [email protected] Hkkx izR;sd rFkk jke cyh] lw;Z cyh] pUnz cyh] jktcyh dk [email protected] Hkkx izR;sdA eq0 egnsbZ [email protected] Hkkx fxj/kkjh rFkk e[kh/kj dk [email protected] Hkkx izR;sd gksxkA ;g vkns'k vihy ua0 16 dh i=koyh ij jgsxk rFkk vU; lEcU/kh vihyksa ij Hkh ykxw gksxkA"

"As stated above, the appeal no. 61 is allowed and appeal nos. 6, 7 and 15 are dismissed. The order of the Consolidation Officer is modified as follows : Bal Govind and Har Govind shall not get any share in Gata nos. 185/39, 189/49 pertaining to Khata no. 19-Kha. In these Gatas, Musafir and Prasad shall have 1/9th part each, Ram Bali, Surya Bali, Chandra Bali and Rajbali shall have 1/36th part each, Mahdai shall have 1/3rd part, and Girdhari and Makhidar shall have 1/6th part each. This order shall be on the record of appeal no. 16 and shall also be applicable on other related appeals."

(Translation by Court)

15. Against the order passed by SOC, three revisions were filed. Revision No. 70 of 1975 filed by Har Govind, Revision No. 78 of 1975 filed by Kripa Shanker and Revision No. 79 of 1975 filed by Rudra Pratap. DDC vide order dated 26.08.1976 has partly allowed Revision of Har Govind, rejected Revision filed by Kripa Shanker and allowed Revision filed by Rudra Pratap. It has upheld order of SOC in respect of Khata No. 10-Kh. In respect of Khata No. 27-A and 58, DDC has stated that there was a compromise in Case No. 700 of 1956 in which plot no. 92/2 was given to Har Govind and similarly in Khata No. 58, plot no. 47/7 area 85 decimal was also given to Har Govind. This compromise attained finality and therefore, both the aforesaid land must be given to Har Govind and only his name should be recorded. In respect of plot no. 27-D, Gata No. 92/3, DDC has held that it was recorded in category 12 and being part of Abadi, Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to pass any order in this regard.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings in respect to plot no. 92/2 and 47/7 on the ground that same was not part of compromise and therefore, DDC has recorded a finding otherwise and erred in law. Unfortunately in writ petition, no such material has been placed to demonstrate that findings recorded by DDC in respect of plot no. 92/2 and 47/7 are perverse or illegal as the said land was not subject matter of compromise. When petitioner is challenging finding of DDC, it is petitioner's responsibility to place relevant material on record to demonstrate that findings recorded by Court below, which is under challenge, is perverse or contrary to record. Alleged compromise is not filed along with writ petition and there is nothing to show that aforesaid land was not part of compromise in Suit No. 700 of 1956 decided on 16.12.1959.

17. In respect of plot no. 92/3 also it is said that entry was wrong but it could not be shown that when land is recorded in category 12, Consolidation Authorities have jurisdiction to pass any order for correction in the entries or not.

18. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any manifest error in the order of DDC warranting any interference in this writ petition. It is worth to remind it at this stage that jurisdiction exercised by this Court over the orders of Revenue Court is not like regular appeal but it is confined to limited judicial review as to whether there is any error apparent on the face of record or not?

19. The scope of judicial review in such matters where the orders of courts below are assailed before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is very limited. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

20. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58, Court said:

"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."

21. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p. 571 :

"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193, to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".

22. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38, Court held that this Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution and even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. For interference, there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where order of the Tribunal, etc. has resulted in grave injustice.

23. For interference under Article 227, the finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895; Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47).

24. It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (See: Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998) 3 SCC 341; Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70; Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171; and Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union & Anr.,(1999) 2 SCC 143).

25. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union of India & ors. Vs. Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521).

26. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82, Court has held that there is no justification for High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/ Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

27. In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931, Court held that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution is not appealable but supervisory. Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are totally perverse.

28. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245, Court observed that it is impermissible for Writ Court to reappreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere.

29. In Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472, Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in place of the findings of Authorities below.

30. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & ors., (2001) 1 SCC 4; Extrella Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97; and Omeph Mathai & ors. Vs. M. Abdul Khader, (2002) 1 SCC 319.

31. In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675, it was held that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227, High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, it also said that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

32. In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, Court said:

"...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions."

33. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650.

34. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432, Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction.

35. In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772, Court said that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority.

36. In Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244, Court, referring to its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592 observed that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227.

37. In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the order of DDC impugned in this writ petition.

38. Dismissed.

39. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date :- 11.10.2018

IrfanUddin