Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India, in Ajay Singh v. Khacheru and Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 34407-34408 of 2013, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 29], reinforced the principle that High Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot reappreciate evidence unless the subordinate authorities have either acted perversely or exceeded their jurisdiction. The case pertained to a land dispute involving Khasra No. 103 in Uttar Pradesh, where the appellant argued the land was a Johad (pond) serving as a water reservoir for the villagers, while the respondent claimed ownership based on revenue records. The findings of multiple authorities and appellate forums favoring the appellant were overturned by the High Court, prompting the matter to be escalated to the Supreme Court.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant contended that the disputed land was a Johad (pond) and not “Oosar,” as claimed by the respondent. He argued that the land served as a water reservoir for the community and had been rightfully excluded from the consolidation scheme under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Supporting his claim, the appellant highlighted that authorities, upon examining the evidence, concluded that the land was indeed a pond, and no valid patta (lease) had been executed in favor of the respondent. The appellant further pointed out that the revenue entries claimed by the respondent were fraudulent and fictitious, and the alleged allotment records were non-existent. The appellant emphasized that these findings were upheld by the Additional Commissioner and subsequently confirmed by the Commissioner.

Conversely, the respondent asserted that the land was incorrectly recorded as a Johad (pond) in the revenue records due to confusion. He maintained that the land should have been categorized as “Oosar” and relied on revenue entries to substantiate his claim of ownership. The respondent also argued that the absence of allotment files could not be attributed to him and that the authorities’ findings were erroneous. Based on these arguments, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, which ruled in his favor, overturning the concurrent findings of the lower authorities and granting him ownership of the disputed land.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and CT Ravikumar, criticized the High Court for exceeding its jurisdiction under Article 226 by reappreciating evidence and reversing the findings of multiple lower authorities. The Apex Court observed that the High Court, in the absence of any perversity or illegality in the subordinate authorities’ findings, lacked the authority to interfere with their conclusions. Citing precedents such as Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj, and Krishnanand v. Director of Consolidation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the High Court cannot function as an appellate authority while exercising its writ jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the findings of the concerned authorities were based on thorough examination of evidence, which established that the land was a Johad (pond) and no valid patta had been issued in favor of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to reverse these findings was unsupported by evidence and amounted to judicial overreach. Additionally, the Apex Court criticized the High Court for setting aside the order of permanent injunction against the respondent in a “cursory and callous manner.” The bench emphasized that an order of permanent injunction, being substantive in nature, requires careful consideration and cannot be dismissed lightly under supervisory jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the findings of the subordinate authorities. The bench reiterated that the writ jurisdiction of High Courts is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or instances of perversity in subordinate authorities’ decisions and should not extend to reappreciation of evidence or substitution of findings.