Dismissed

Murari Lal and Ors. v. the Addl. Commissioner Agra Div. and Ors.

Allahabad HC14 Jan 2020WRIC/2311/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders allotting land to Gram Sabha members via writ petition under Articles 226/227. The court examined precedents on the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction, noting High Courts cannot reappreciate evidence. Finding no manifest error or perversity, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 31.01.1994 and 15.11.1997 dismissed; interim order, if any, vacated.

Murari Lal and Ors. Vs the Addl. Commissioner Agra Div… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2311 of 1998

¶4

Petitioner :- Murari Lal And Ors Respondent :- The Addl. Commissioner Agra Div. And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Rai,B.B. Paul,Ravindra Nath Rai,V.K. Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶7

Heard Sri S.P. Saroj, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri B.B. Paual, Advocate for respondent-4 and learned Standing Counsel

¶8

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 15.11.1997 passed by respondent-1, Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra as well as order dated 31.01.1994 passed by respondent-2, Additional District Magistrate, Agra.

¶9

Petitioners claimed to be Bhumidhars of Plot No. 1093 area 4 bigha, 8 biswa, situate at Village Nagladhir and Plot No. 1051 area 12 bigha at Thana Shankerdwari, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Agra. Both plots were adjoining but during consolidation proceedings got separated and became part of two different villages since both were on the border of two villages. In Form CH 23 Plot No. 1051 area 4 bigha, 8 biswa was shown in the chak of Satya Narayan, one of the petitioners. Plot No. 1051 did not belong to Gram Sabha yet it was allotted by Gram Sabha to Karan Singh and certain other land are also allotted to some others by way of resolution dated 04.03.1986. Petitioners applied for cancellation of lease allotted to respondents but the application was rejected by order dated 31.01.1994 passed by Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Agra. Thereagainst, petitioners preferred Revision No. 37/93-94 under Section 33A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”) but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 15.11.1997 passed by Additional

¶10

¶11

Commissioner (Judicial) holding that no revision is maintainable.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that no material was placed before Collector that valid procedure for allotment of land was followed and land was allotted to the persons eligible for the same. 5. I find that the basic case set up by petitioners was that Plot No. 1051 belong to them and it is in their possession, hence no lease could have been allotted treating the land as Gram Sabha land but I find that petitioners have misrepresented about the area of Plot No. 1051 inasmuch as it was only 12 biswa but petitioners claimed it to be 12 bigha which could not be proved. Land belong to Gram Sabha was allotted to respondents after following due procedure. When land belong to Gram Sabha petitioners obviously have no locus standi to challenge allotment and I do not find any manifest error in impugned order as no finding has been shown to be perverse, hence no interference is called for.

¶13

Further, 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.

¶14

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

¶15

"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."

¶16

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.

¶17

¶18

571 :

¶19

"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".

¶20

9. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaquim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38

¶21

the Apex 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.

¶22

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).

¶23

It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts,

¶24

¶25

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) .

¶26

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) .

¶27

In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Apex 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.

¶28

In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held 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.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

"...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."

¶38

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 .

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

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.

¶44

In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition.

¶45

Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶46

Order Date :- 14.1.2020 Ashish Pd./AK

Murari Lal and Ors. v. the Addl. Commissioner Agra Div. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Lal and Ors. v. the Addl. Commissioner Agra Div. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Alim and Others Vs Tahir Husain

Dilip Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarjeet Vs State of U.P.

Kullu and Another Vs the Chief Revenue Oficer and Another

Vinay Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shri Narain Singh Vs v-a.D.J. Mirzapur and Others