Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1456/2014 on 12 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 1456 of 2014
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.
(1) Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Advocate holding brief
of Mr. Prashant Khanna, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
(2) Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
(3) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the following substantive reliefs:-
i) Issue a writ, order or direction calling for
the record in the nature of certiorari, and quash
the Order passed by Ld. Prescribed Authority
dated 31.05.2013 & "Prapatra Kha" dated
06.06.2013 (Annexure No. 4 to this writ
petition) as well as the order and judgment of
the appellate authority dated 10.06.2014
(Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition)
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
commanding the respondent authority not to
interfere in the peaceful possession of petitioner
over the Khasra No. 193, situated in Village Tilni
P.C. Tilni, Tehsil & District Rudraprayag and the
petitioner may not be evicted from the said
land.
(4) Proceedings under U.P. Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972
were initiated against petitioner by the Prescribed
Authority, Rudraprayag under Section 4(1) of the
Act. Parties led evidence before the Prescribed
Authority. Ultimately eviction order was passed
against petitioner by learned Prescribed Authority
on 31.05.2013.
(5) Petitioner challenged the said order by filing
appeal under Section 9 of the said Act, which was
dismissed by learned Additional District Judge,
Rudraprayag vide judgment dated 10.06.2014.
(6) Petitioner has challenged the judgments and
orders passed by Prescribed Authority as well as
Appellate Authority.
(7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
(8) The stand taken by petitioner before
Prescribed Authority was that he is tenure holder
in respect of land comprised in Khasra No. 2, Plot
Nos.197, 198, 199, 200 & 201, therefore, he
cannot be termed as 'unauthorised occupant'.
Learned Prescribed Authority, however, returned
a finding that petitioner's unauthorised occupation
was found over different piece of land comprised
in Plot No. 193, based on statements of Ms.
Urmila Devi, Ms. Vidhya Devi & Ms. Sita Devi and
also the report & statement of Dhanpal Singh -
Patwari.
(9) In view of dispute regarding identity of land,
learned Appellate Court issued Commission and
Commissioner in his report stated that petitioner
was found in unauthorised occupation over Plot
No. 193, which is State land. Thereafter, on
petitioner's application, another Commission was
issued and in the report of second Commissioner,
construction raised by petitioner was found over
Plot No. 193, petitioner did not file any objection
against said report.
(10) Since both learned courts below have
recorded a finding of fact that petitioner's
unauthorised occupation was found over Plot No.
193, which is State land, therefore, the stand
taken by learned counsel for petitioner that
construction raised by petitioner is standing over
Plot No. 197 cannot be accepted.
(11) It is well settled that while exercising
supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not act as
court of appeal and every mistake of fact or law
cannot be corrected in a writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution. The scope of supervisory
jurisdiction has been considered and discussed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Estralla
Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., reported in
(2001) 8 SCC 97. Paragraph no. 6 of the said
judgment is reproduced below:
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and
jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is examined and explained in a
number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of
power under this article involves a duty on the High
Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and to see that they do the
duty expected or required of them in a legal manner.
The High Court is not vested with any unlimited
prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong
decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of
the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this
power and interfering with the orders of the courts or
tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of
duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of
law or justice, where if the High Court does not
interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is
also well settled that the High Court while acting under
this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate
court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of
the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not
apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can
set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior
court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify
or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable
person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which
the court or tribunal has come to."
(12) In such view of the matter, this Court does
not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned judgments and orders, passed by
learned Prescribed Authority and learned
Additional District Judge.
(13) Accordingly, writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
12.12.2023
Aswal
