Article 227| High Court Can & Should Interfere With Findings Of Fact Arrived At By Subordinate Court If Not Based On Evidence Or Its Manifest Misreading: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reemphasized that the High Court can and should interfere with findings of fact arrived at by the Subordinate Court, if they are not based on evidence or based on a manifest misreading of evidence.

A Civil Appeal was filed before the Court, challenging the legality of the Order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) under Sections 4 and 6, read with Section 10 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti reiterated, “The limitation is that the High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, ought not enter into a factual dispute, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its own view for the finding of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. We conclude by noting that the High Court can and should interfere with findings of fact arrived at by the subordinate court, if they are not based on evidence or based on a manifest misreading of evidence.”

The Bench said that the supervisory jurisdiction confers power on the High Court to set aside Orders where the finding of fact is so manifestly perverse or irrational that no reasonable judicial mind could have arrived at it; often described as a perversity apparent to the face of the record.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocates C.S. Vaidhyanathan, and Challa Kodandaram appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Basava Prabhu Patil appeared for the Claimants. Senior Advocates Vipin Sanghi and A. Sirrajuddin appeared for the impleaded Respondents.

Brief Facts

An extent of 102 Acres in Survey No. 201/1 Gurramguda Forest Block, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, State of Telangana, was the subject matter of the Appeal. In 2005, the Respondent-Claimant filed a Claim Petition before the FSO, claiming a succession right through Salar Jung III to the Subject Matter of the Civil Appeal. The FSO, at the first instance, vide Order, rejected the claim for exclusion from the proposed notification as a reserved forest, and held that the Subject Matter is Government land. The Claimants filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, IXth Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The Appellate Authority set aside the Order of the FSO and remanded the matter to the FSO for fresh enquiry.

On remand, the FSO accepted the claim of Claimants for Subject Matter as Arazi-Makta of Salar Jung-III and requested the Divisional Forest Officer to exclude the subject matter of Appeal from the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Telangana Forest Act from Gurramguda Forest Block and send a revised map for Turkayamjal and Gurramguda villages for final proposals under Section 15 of the Telangana Forest Act to the Government. The Forest Department being aggrieved by the exclusion of subject matter from the reserve forest notification, filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Principal District Judge and in 2016, the same was dismissed. The State, represented by the Forest Department, filed a Petition before the Telangana High Court and by the impugned Order, the release of the subject matter from the reserve forest notification was upheld. This was under challenge before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above regard, observed, “It is true that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court could go into the question of facts or look into the evidence if justice so requires it if there is any misdirection in law or a view of fact taken in the teeth of preponderance of evidence. The High Court also should not interfere with a finding rendered within the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal except where the findings are a perverse misreading of documents and not based on any material evidence, or it results in manifest injustice.”

The Court added that the High Court, in the supervisory jurisdiction of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, distinguishes between overseeing the functioning of Courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction and the overreaching of its jurisdiction.

“Through the “jurisdiction” defined in the Articles, the High Court refrains from overreaching into the discretion conferred on the courts and tribunals subordinate to it. However, the High Court, as part of its jurisdictional obligation, is expected to intervene when the subordinate court or tribunal has acted with a patent lack of jurisdiction, has exceeded its authority or has failed to exercises a jurisdiction legally vested in it”, it noted.

The Court made it clear that the incorrect array of parties is not being treated as the decisive factor in deciding the Civil Appeal.

“When the dispute over question of title surfaces, the administrative machinery must halt, and the parties must be directed to the competent Civil Court, which is the sole repository of the power to declare ownership”, it remarked.

The Court was of the view that the inquiry under Section 10 of the Telangana Forest Act is summary in nature because, upon considering the claim and objection, the FSO does not decide rival claim but merely admits or rejects the claim to a right in or over any land.

“… independent of the view taken by the FSO on the determinative character of the Nazim Atiyat Court’s orders, the impugned orders failed to appreciate the inconclusiveness in the order of the Atiyat Court, when it redirected the matter to be settled as per the Inams Act”, it said.

The Court further noted that if the argument of the Claimants is accepted, the same can be utilised for a vast extent of property, for which all the rights have been settled under one enactment or another.

“The intrinsic examination of the documents relied on by the Claimants does not establish that the Subject Matter is a self-acquired property of Salar Jung-III. It is admitted that with the abolition of Jagirs, the land stood vested in the Government. Having admitted that at the first instance, the estate of Salar Jung-III was divested of its entitlement and possession through a valid regulation, accepting such scanty records/copies of letters for retransfer in favour of the estate of Salar Jung-III is highly improbable, and acceptance of such a claim is nothing short of a perverse recording of a finding”, it also said.

Conclusion

Furthermore, the Court remarked that the proceedings under the Telangana Forest Act cannot go far to unsettle the proceedings initiated under Jagir Abolition Regulation, Jagir Abolition Commutation, and the Abolition of Inams Act.

“In fine, we hold that the claim of right through the sale deed dated 05.03.1248H, release order from Jagir Administration, adjudication by Nizam Atiyat Court of the Claimants has been accepted either through non consideration of the documents filed by the Claimants, its legal effect vis-à vis the government, and/or by exceeding the jurisdiction of inquiry under Section 10 of the Telangana Forest Act. The limitation for filing objections is liberally applied by holding that there is power to condone the delay. The District Court and the High Court fell into error of law in affirming the view taken by the FSO through the order dated 15.10.2014. The claim for the Subject Matter of the Claimants in Claim Petition No. 1 of 2005 for the appreciation and examination of the very case of the Claimants fails, and the claim is thus rejected”, it held.

The Court also held that the subject matter has been Government land and the proposals for final notification under Section 15 of the Telangana Forest Act have been validly instituted.

“The Appellant has kept the proposal for final declaration under Section 15 of the Telangana Forest Act pending from 1971 till 20.12.2004. It is a matter of common knowledge that lung spaces are shrinking in all cities, and the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad are no exceptions. Hence, the Chief Secretary, State of Telangana, is directed to ensure completion of pending proposals under Section 15 of the Telangana Forest Act for including the Subject Matter as a reserved forest within 8 weeks, and file the compliance status report before the Registry of this Court”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment.

Cause Title- The State of Telangana v. Mir Jaffar Ali Khan (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1465)

Click here to read/download the Judgment