Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8024 of 1984 Petitioner :- Smt. Prem Wati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhan Prakesh,M.B. Yadav,S.C. Verma, Satyendra Kumar Singh, V.B.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has arisen from orders dated 23.12.1984 and 09.04.1983 passed by respondents 2 and 3 respectively under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1960”).
3. There were three Khatas and land in one Khata was recorded in revenue record in the name of Smt. Premwati, petitioner 1 and land in other two Khatas was recorded in the name of five sons of petitioner namely Ram Krishna (major) and remaining four minor sons i.e. Dau Dayal, Yogendra Kumar, Devendra Kumar and Ravindra Kumar. On the prescribed date i.e. 08.06.1973, for the purpose of ceiling of land, a notice under Section 10(2) of Act, 1960 was issued wherein land recorded in the name of petitioner and that recorded in the name of her minor sons was included and total area of land was 84 bighas 10 biswas and 10 biswansis (equivalent to 79 bighas 10 biswas and 5 biswansis in terms of irrigated land). Land recorded in the name of Ram Krishna, major son, was excluded in above notice. Petitioner filed objection whereafter Prescribed Authority passed order dated 18.11.1974 declaring 48 bighas 5 biswa 5 biswansis land surplus.
4. Petitioner Smt. Premwati filed Appeal No.656 of 1974, which was allowed by Ist Additional Civil Judge vide judgment dated 21.5.1975 and the matter was remanded to Prescribed Authority for deciding the matter afresh after making demarcation of plots, which constituted joint Khata of petitioner with other tenure-holders. Thereafter, Prescribed Authority again passed order dated 31.5.1976 declaring 30 bighas 4 biswas 16 biswansis in terms of irrigated land surplus. Thereagainst petitioner Smt Premwati filed Revenue Appeal (Ceiling Appeal) No.250 of 1977. Appellate Court formulated following two points :
“(1) Whether plots nos.160 and 117 and 312 are unirrigated?
(2) Whether the compliance of rule 10 of the Rules framed under this Act is necessary?”
5. Appellate Court, while answering issue 1, held that plots no.160 and 117 were irrigated from an oil engine and Kharif and Rabi crops were grown therein. 'Oil engine' comes within the definition of 'private irrigation', therefore, both these plots fall within the definition of 'irrigated land'. With regard to plot no.312, Appellate Court held that only 7 bighas of plot no.312 can be said to be 'irrigated' and remaining area is 'unirrigated'. It also held that since petitioner Smt. Premwati had only half share therefore, only 3 bighas 10 biswas of area of plot no.312 can be said to be irrigated for the purpose of Smt. Premwati. Consequently, it held that petitioner Smt. Premwati is entitled to relief in respect of 2 bighas 12 biswas 5-1/3 biswansis. With regard to issue 2, it was held that Prescribed Authority should have found out particulars of tenure holders in whose Khatas, minjumla plots had fallen and after giving notice to all tenure holders, it should have made separate demarcation of share of the appellant so as to give effect to direction earlier issued. The appeal was thus partly allowed vide judgment dated 12.12.1977 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Aligarh, with following directions :
“The appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. 7 Bighas 16 biswas 16 biswansis area of plot no.312 is held to be unirrigated and the appellant is given the relief of 2 Bighas 12 Biswas 5-1/3 biswansis. The case is sent back to the learned prescribed authority to carry out demarcation under rule 10 of the Act as discussed in this judgment and the earlier remand orders.
Thereafter the surplus land shall be declared keeping in view the choice of the appellant.”
6. Thereafter, Prescribed Authority after demarcation of joint land declared surplus land in Khata no.61 plot no.160. Again petitioner Smt. Premwati filed appeal no.18 of 1983, which has been dismissed by learned III Additional District Judge, Aligarh vide order dated 09.4.1984. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in joint land there was no demarcation still without determining area, land has been declared surplus in concerned gata. Earlier, Appellate Court has found favour with stand taken by State that Smt. Premwati has separate possession over minjumla plots hence there was no occasion to ask for demarcation. A finding of fact has been recorded in the order dated 09.4.1984 as under :
“Undisputedly Smt. Premawati is an exclusive possession of the plots also which are mentioned as min-jumla.”
8. Referring to Rule 10(1) of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1961”), Court below found that demarcation can be done only when tenure holder is not in separate possession. In the present case there was no allegation that tenure holder is not in separate possession or observation of Prescribed Authority are incorrect hence there was no necessity of demarcation.
9. When questioned, this finding that petitioner had separate possession over minjumla plots could neither be shown to be perverse or contrary to record hence, in my view, concurrent findings recorded by ceiling authorities in the impugned orders cannot said to be erroneous. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution since the scope of judicial review in such matters is very restricted and narrow.
10. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.
11. 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.
12. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 the 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.”
13. 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".
14. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 the 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. The 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.
15. 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).
16. 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).
17. 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).
18. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82, the Court has held that there is no justification for the 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.
19. In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931, the Court said that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the 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.
20. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245, the Court observed that it is impermissible for the 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.
21. In Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472, the Court observed 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, the 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.”
25. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, the 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.
26. 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.
27. In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772, the 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.
28. In Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244, Apex 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.
29. In the present case, I do not find that the order impugned in this writ petition does satisfy any of the relevant considerations, as noticed above, so as to justify interference with the orders impugned by this Court in this writ petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition.
30. Dismissed.
31. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Manish Himwan/KA