Article 226 Constitution| HCs Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Or Make Factual Findings Unless Authorities Below Exceeded Their Jurisdiction Or Acted Perversely: SC

The Court allowed the Appeal challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court that set aside an Order based on the concurrent findings of law and facts. The Bench had to determine whether the concurrent findings recorded by the Additional District Magistrate and Additional Commissioner could be interfered with by the High Court in a Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “It is a well-established principle that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely.”

Advocate Surat Singh represented the Appellant, while Advocate Manindra Dubey appeared for the Respondents.

In the adjudication of the question, the Supreme Court noted that the documents of the disputed land were found to be that of a Pond as mentioned in the revenue records.

“The authorities below had concurrently held that as per the revenue record, the disputed land had been shown as Johad (Pond). Further, it was held that a valid patta was never executed in favour of the respondent and that there was no record of allotment entry regarding the said patta. No such entry was available in Tehsil in this regard. Thereafter, they further observed that the entries made in Khatauni 1385 to 1390 Fasli are fictitious as Lekhpal and Kanungo signed it on contradictory dates, i.e., 06.08.1982 and 06.05.1982, respectively,” the Bench noted.

The Court stated that the said finding of facts was reversed by the High Court in Writ proceedings only on the ground that at all relevant times, the disputed land was recorded as 'Oosar’ in the revenue records and under some confusion it was entered as Johad (Pond).

The Court referred to its decision in Krishnanand v. Director of Consolidation (2015), wherein it was held that “such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised for reappreciating the evidence and arrival of findings of facts unless the authority which passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to render the finding or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently perverse.”

Consequently, the Court held, “In our considered view, the High Court has committed an error of law and facts in setting aside the concurrent findings in both the impugned judgment and order. There was no basis for the High Court to ignore the findings of the authorities and come to its own conclusion by appreciating the evidence on record. The same was outside the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any perversity or illegality afflicting the findings of the authorities.”

The Bench stated that the High Court’s decision was “problematic” on the following two counts- One, that the order of the Collector formed only one part of the basis for seeking a permanent injunction and was not the raison d’etre of the permanent injunction so issued. Second, that an order granting a permanent injunction, with the authority having given its independent and anxious consideration, cannot be set aside in such a cursory and callous manner, more so under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Ajay Singh v. Khacheru & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 9)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Surat Singh, Rajesh Palo, Rakesh Kumar Palo and B. Jagannath Rao; AOR Sudhansu Palo

Respondents: Advocates Manindra Dubey; AOR K. L. Janjani and Sanjay Kumar Tyagi

Click here to read/download the Judgment