Introduction:

In a recent judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, presided over by Justice Puneet Gupta, underscored the principle that Article 227 of the Constitution is not a remedy for every erroneous decision by lower courts. Instead, it is reserved for correcting glaring errors apparent on the face of the record. This clarification came in the case of Mohammad Rafiq Rather versus Sara Banoo, involving a land dispute over ancestral property. The court dismissed Rather’s petition, emphasizing the narrow scope of Article 227 and the necessity of compelling circumstances for invoking its superintendence.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Mohammad Rafiq Rather, represented by senior advocate Mr. Z. A. Qureshi and Ms. Monisa Maqsood, argued that the lower courts had made significant errors in their decisions by relying on conflicting revenue reports without proper consideration. Rather contended that the courts ignored critical evidence that did not support Sara Banoo’s claim and failed to accurately establish rightful possession of the disputed land. He asserted that these errors constituted a manifest error justifying intervention under Article 227.

Sara Banoo, represented by her counsel Mr. Lone Altaf, countered that the findings of the lower courts were thorough and well-grounded, requiring no interference. Altaf argued that the lower courts had carefully assessed the facts and evidence, including previous legal proceedings initiated and withdrawn by Rather. He emphasized that the courts had considered multiple conflicting revenue reports and other available evidence to arrive at their decisions, and that any discrepancies did not amount to a ‘patent error’ necessitating the High Court’s intervention.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Puneet Gupta, after analyzing the record, noted that the lower courts had indeed considered multiple conflicting revenue reports from Tehsildar Kangan. Despite the inconsistencies in these reports, the lower courts had evaluated other available evidence and legal precedents to make their decisions. The High Court observed that these discrepancies did not amount to a ‘patent error’ justifying intervention under Article 227.

The court highlighted that Rafiq had previously filed a suit for possession of the same land, which he later withdrew. This, coupled with the conflicting revenue reports, indicated a factual dispute that required resolution through a full-fledged trial rather than a writ petition. Justice Gupta emphasized that the High Court’s power of superintendence is not meant to substitute the appeal process and should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances where there is a ‘manifest miscarriage of justice.’

The court remarked, “This Court will not normally interfere even if there is some wrong committed on facts or law by the Courts below. Article 227 cannot be invoked only for the reason that the petitioner feels aggrieved of the order impugned in the petition. The compelling circumstances have to be made out by the aggrieved party against the order impugned in the petition requiring interference by the Court.”

In the absence of compelling circumstances necessitating interference, the High Court dismissed Mohammad Rafiq Rather’s petition, thus upholding the orders of the lower courts and reinforcing the limited scope of Article 227.