High Court cannot ordinarily re-evaluate evidence in Article 226 proceedings : Supreme Court

“It is a well-settled principle that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-evaluate the evidence and arrive at a finding of fact, except where the authorities below have exceeded their jurisdiction or acted in bad faith.“, the judges said Sanjay Karol and CT Ravikumar.

Relied on Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S . Ghurama, Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj and Krishnanand v. Director of Consolidation. In all these cases the above observation was made.

This case concerned a land dispute (Khasra No. 103). The respondent contended that it was entitled to the land in dispute and referred to the revenue returns to support its position. On the other hand, the appellant filed an application under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, contending that the disputed land was Johad (Pond) and not “Oosar”. Accordingly, the land was excluded from the consolidation scheme because it served as a water reservoir used by the villagers.

However, the concerned authority, after examining the evidence, found that the disputed land was Johad (Pond). It was further held that a valid patta was never executed in favor of the defendant. He also admitted that the records were false and fictitious and there was no record of such distribution. It was further ordered to correct the revenue records and cancel the alleged patta. Challenging this, the respondent approached the Additional Commissioner, but to no avail. The court’s conclusions were confirmed by the Commissioner.

Therefore, the case reached the High Court, which canceled the conclusions of the above-mentioned authorities. The court held that the disputed land was erroneously recorded as ‘Jogad (pond)’ in the revenue returns due to some confusion. The same should have been considered as “Oosar”. He also observed that the plaintiff cannot be held responsible for the absence of allotment files. Thus, the statement of claim was satisfied in favor of the defendant. Against this background, the case reached the Supreme Court.

The Division Bench held that the High Court had exceeded its authority in setting aside the concurrent findings.

“There was no reason for the high court to ignore the findings of the authorities and reach its own conclusion after evaluating the available evidence. The same was beyond the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any perversity or illegality which would vitiate the findings of the authorities.’

He added that the findings of the High Court are not supported by the evidence in the record. In addition, the high court also set aside the permanent injunction against the defendant. The Supreme Court “condemned” the manner in which the same was delayed and complied with:

“Secondly, an order granting a permanent injunction, after an independent and thorough review by the authorities, cannot be revoked in such a hasty and heartless manner, especially under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court. A permanent injunction is an order in substance and should be treated as such. This way of canceling a permanent injunction should be obsolete.”

Based on this, the conclusions of the relevant bodies were renewed, and the contested order was canceled.

Case Name: AJAY SINGH v. KHACHERU AND ORS., Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 34407-34408 of 2013

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Click here to read the solution