Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to Khasra No.103 (formerly Khasra No.84) in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. In 1970, the land was recorded as 'Johad (Pond)' in revenue records. In 2003, respondent Khacheru claimed rights over the land based on an alleged patta from 1981-82. Appellant Ajay Singh filed an application under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, asserting the land was a pond used by villagers for cattle and water, and was excluded from consolidation. The Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector, Ghaziabad, on 27 August 2004, examined the evidence and found that no allotment file for the patta existed in the Tehsil office, the allotment register showed a different year (1978-79), and the Khatauni entries were fictitious due to contradictory signing dates by Lekhpal and Kanungo. The patta was cancelled and revenue entries ordered to be corrected. The respondent's revision before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, was dismissed on 13 September 2006, upholding the findings. Meanwhile, the appellant also obtained an ex-parte permanent injunction from the Civil Judge on 7 November 2005, restraining the respondent from interfering with the land as a pond. The respondent's review application was dismissed on 29 December 2006. The respondent then filed Writ Petition No.9192 of 2007 before the Allahabad High Court, which on 17 January 2013 allowed the writ, setting aside the orders of the revenue authorities. The High Court held that the land was mistakenly recorded as 'Johad' and should have been 'Usar', and that the respondent could not be blamed for non-availability of allotment files. The appellant's review petition was dismissed on 13 May 2013. The Supreme Court, in the present appeal, examined whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact in writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings without establishing perversity or illegality in the authorities' findings. The concurrent findings that the land was a pond and the patta was fictitious were based on evidence, and the High Court's conclusion that the land was 'Usar' was unsupported. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the orders of the revenue authorities.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings of fact in writ proceedings unless the findings below are perverse or the authority lacked jurisdiction. The High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings that the disputed land was a Johad (Pond) based on its own appreciation of evidence, without establishing perversity. (Paras 13-21) B) Land Law - Revenue Records - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 198(4) - Cancellation of Patta - The authorities below concurrently held that the alleged patta in favour of the respondent was fictitious as no allotment file existed and entries in Khatauni were contradictory. The High Court's reversal was unsupported by evidence and exceeded writ jurisdiction. (Paras 5-6, 15-16, 21-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner that the disputed land was recorded as a Johad (Pond) in the revenue records.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 17.01.2013 and 13.05.2013, and restored the orders of the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector dated 27.08.2004 and the Additional Commissioner dated 13.09.2006 and 29.12.2006.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to reappreciate evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or without jurisdiction
- Concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities should not be interfered with in writ proceedings absent perversity or illegality
- High Court's power under Article 226 is supervisory
- not appellate
