High Court’s Supervisory Powers Under Article 227 Cannot Be Used To Substitute Plausible Views Of Execution Courts: Supreme Court
The Court restored valuation for the decree holder, holding the High Court exceeded jurisdiction by impleading the State belatedly to clarify its notification.
Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice N.V. Anjaria, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the High Courts while exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate evidence or substitute the plausible and reasonable findings of an executing court with its own view.
The Bench noted that a High Court exceeds its supervisory jurisdiction when it impleads the State to "clarify" or reinterpret its own statutory notifications during a private dispute to the prejudice of a party. Consequentially, the Bench restored a higher land valuation originally granted to the Decree Holder, holding that once a subordinate court adopts a reasonable interpretation of a guideline, the High Court is barred from supplanting it merely because an alternative interpretation is possible.
Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed, “…the interpretation, adopted by the Executing Court constituted a plausible and reasonable view. In such circumstances, the High Court could not, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, supplant that view with another interpretation, merely because such an alternative view was also possible. By exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 solely to demonstrate that another view was possible, the High Court, in effect, acted as an appellate court, which is impermissible in law.”.
Senior Advocates P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Narveer Yadav, Supreeta Sharanagouda, AORs appeared for the appellants in one case and for respondents in the other case.
As per the facts, a framework agreement between Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (N.I.C.E.) and the Government of Karnataka for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project was the matter of dispute.
A parcel of land belonging to the respondents (Decree Holders) was utilised by N.I.C.E. for an interchange. In 2007, the parties entered into a compromise decree stipulating that if N.I.C.E. failed to convey alternative land, it would pay the "guideline value" of the utilised property as fixed by the Government on the date of the settlement.
When N.I.C.E. defaulted on conveying the alternative land, the Decree Holders sought execution. The Executing Court determined the value at ₹1,000 per sq. ft. based on a 2007 Government notification for converted urban land.
On a writ petition filed by N.I.C.E. under Article 227, the High Court impleaded the State, sought a clarification on the notification, and subsequently reduced the value to ₹500 per sq. ft.. The Decree Holders appealed this reduction to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that the High Court acted as an appellate court by re-examining the character of the land and substituting the Executing Court's findings. It found that the Executing Court’s valuation of ₹1,000 per sq. ft. was a "plausible and reasonable view" based on evidence that the land was converted for industrial use within municipal limits.
“…the High Court, in effect, called upon the State Government to file an affidavit seeking clarification on the interpretation of the notification. Although the High Court ultimately rejected the report submitted by the State, it nonetheless accepted the State’s clarification with regard to the interpretation of the notification and proceeded to act upon the same. In substance, the High Court permitted the State to interpret its own notification and thereby influence a lis exclusively between private parties. The State was thus placed in the position of being a rule-maker, interpreter, and adjudicator of its own notification simultaneously, all while the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Such an approach, in our considered view, is impermissible. The executive cannot be allowed to explain away or reinterpret a statutory instrument during the course of litigation to the prejudice of one of the parties.”, the Bench noted.
“…the High Court accepted the interpretation advanced by the State solely on the ground that an alternative interpretation of the notification was possible. By doing so, the High Court substituted its own view for that of the Executing Court, thereby exhibiting the conduct of an Appellate Court rather than that of a court exercising supervisory jurisdiction…”, the Bench further noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal filed by the Decree Holders and dismissed the appeal filed by N.I.C.E.. It set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Executing Court’s order, confirming the land value at ₹1,000 per sq. ft., aggregating to a total sum of ₹13,72,14,000.
Cause Title: Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. v. B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 434)
Appearances:
Appellants: P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. Advs, Mahesh Thakur, AOR, Narveer Yadav, Siddhartha Sati, Sharanagouda Patil, Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR; Kotresh A. M., Advocates.
Respondents: P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. Advs, Mahesh Thakur, AOR, Narveer Yadav, Siddhartha Sati, Sharanagouda Patil, Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR; Kotresh A. M., Advocates.