JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-defendant seeking quashing of the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by learned Sub-Judge, Anantnag and also order dated 26.07.2021 passed by learned District Judge, Anantang, whereby the order dated 22.03.2021 has been upheld by the learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag. The petitioner has also sought direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent no. 1 to conclude de novo enquiry already initiated by giving her opportunity of being heard within a time bound manner. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the shop in Meena Bazar, Pahalgam, was allotted to one Abdul Khaliq Beigh of Zadipora, Khanabal, in 2006 vide order No. 627-29 dated 05.5.2006 by the Executive Engineer, Pahalgam Development Authority and possession of the said shop was handed over to him. In the said shop, Abdul Khaliq Beigh was running the business of Grocery Store. Plaintiffrespondent no. 8 is a grandson of Abdul Khaliq Beigh, and petitioner, Mst. Jana Begum, is a widow of Abdul Khaliq. Father of the respondent no. 8, grandson of Abdul Khaliq, namely, Abdul Hamid Beigh had died on 03.10.2002, leaving behind respondent no. 8 and two daughters and wife. Abdul Khaliq has also died in the year 2008. During life time aforesaid Abdul Khaliq, grandfather of respondent no. 8-plaintiff before the Trial court, executed a Will in favour of his grandson in respect of the shop in question which was already in possession prior to the order of allotment. At the time when Abdul Khaliq died in the year 2008, the plaintiff-respondent no. 8, who is also grandson of the petitioner, was minor, therefore, the possession of the shop was with his mother and it is only after attaining the age of majority, he started running business in the suit shop as has been claimed by him before the Trial court. From the date of death of the grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent no. 8, shop in question remained closed. Petitioner, who is grandmother of plaintiff-respondent no. 8, raised dispute with regard to the shop in question and on her application various orders were passed by SDM, Pahalgam; Chief Executive Officer, Pahalgam Development Authority, Pahalgam; and also, by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. From the date of death of the grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent no. 8, shop in question remained closed. Petitioner, who is grandmother of plaintiff-respondent no. 8, raised dispute with regard to the shop in question and on her application various orders were passed by SDM, Pahalgam; Chief Executive Officer, Pahalgam Development Authority, Pahalgam; and also, by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. In pursuance to the various orders, the shop in question was ordered to be sealed; then it was directed to be de-sealed. The possession was ordered to be handed over to the plaintiff-respondent no. 8. De novo enquiry was ordered by Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, and further the possession sought to be taken back. 3. The petitioner herein claimed that she is owner of the shop and had executed rent deed in respect of the suit shop. So, in brief the dispute so raised by the grandmother of the respondent no. 8 was with regard to the possession and owner of the suit shop in question. It was in view of the said dispute raised that those orders have been passed by the authorities mentioned above. 4. The orders passed by the SDM and Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, were challenged in a Civil Suit filed by the respondent no. 8, precisely on the ground that the authorities have passed orders without having any jurisdiction and thus the said orders sought to be quashed. The dispute was civil in nature. For determination of title and possession in respect of shop in question and such dispute was to be determined in a Civil court. 5. Before the Trial court, the plaintiff has sought following reliefs:- 1. Order No. SDM/Pgm/R/18/343-45 Dated 31.07.2018 passed by the SDM Pahalgam, Order No. DCA/Reader/20-21/169-70 dated 14.01.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, Order no. SDM/PGM/R/20/664/66 Dated 15.01.2021 and order No. SDM/PGM/R/20/725-29 Dated 04.2.2021 passed by the SDM be set aside and be declared in operative and against law. 2. That the plaintiff be declared entitled to retain and enjoy the possession of shop no. 9 of Block B situated at Meena Bazar Pahalgam on the basis of the will deed dated 24.06.2005 registered by Sub Registered Aishmuqam on 25.06.2005 executed by the deceased Abdul Khaliq Beigh in favour of his grandson, Kaisar Ahmad Beigh, with regard to the aforesaid shop. 3. 9 of Block B situated at Meena Bazar Pahalgam on the basis of the will deed dated 24.06.2005 registered by Sub Registered Aishmuqam on 25.06.2005 executed by the deceased Abdul Khaliq Beigh in favour of his grandson, Kaisar Ahmad Beigh, with regard to the aforesaid shop. 3. The private defendants be restrained from causing any sort of interference with possession of the plaintiff over the above said shop. 6. The Trial court, while dealing with the application seeking temporary injunction, has taken into consideration the averments made in the Suit as well as written statements and also orders passed by the authorities under challenge and come to the conclusion that plaintiff has prima facie case and that in case temporary injunction as sought is not granted, it is he who would suffer irreparable loss and injury in case his rights are not protected and that too balance of convenience lies in his favour. The relevant portion of the order dated 22.03.2021 is reproduced as under:- “… Perusal of the material on record and also the arguments put-forth by the ld counsels for the parties, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff/applicant at this stage has made out a prima facie case for ordering of staying the operation of orders impugned in the matter, de sealing of the subject shop and allowing the plaintiff to run the subject shop till final disposal of the suit. The last part of the order regarding allowing the plaintiff to run the subject shop is found apt for two reasons. 1. That there is no application from the side of the defendant no. 4 for de sealing and allowing her to run the subject shop while as this court has observed in this order itself that there is material to indicate that plaintiff at least on 15.01.2021 was operating the suit shop. 2. That the positive case of the defendant no. 4 is that she had been giving out the subject shop to different people on yearly rent/licence fee and it was that tenant from whose occupation, the suit shop was sealed. Going by that contention of the defendant no. 4, the loss if any by running of the subject shop by plaintiff would be to the extent of loss of rent/licence fee only, if the claim of the defendant no. Going by that contention of the defendant no. 4, the loss if any by running of the subject shop by plaintiff would be to the extent of loss of rent/licence fee only, if the claim of the defendant no. 4 was found true, unlike in the case of the plaintiff, if the claim of the plaintiff was true, then their would-be loss of business opportunities which would amount to an irreparable loss to the plaintiff. In such an eventuality, keeping the suit premises in continuous closure would amount to hardships while as business prospects of the plaintiff being ruined cannot be rules out. The loss to defendant no. 4, if the proposition of the private defendants is correct, can be about or around Rs.1,30,000/- per year which was the license fee fixed as per the last license deed by the defendant no. 4 with the said Furkan ad the loss ca be compensated by money only. So being the situation, I am of the considered opinion, that continuous closure of the suit shop would result continuous loss of business to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated by any means while as the loss of the defendant no. 4 can be quantified to the extent of around Rs.1,30,000/- only on annual basis. The instant facts and circumstances project a situation which project a case of peculiar nature where the denial of relief and continuance of the situation will cause hardship to the applicant/plaintiff alone while as it will not help the defendant no. 4 either, if the suit shop remains closed till final disposal of the main suit. The applicant as such has been able to carve out a case of prima facie nature while as the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. An irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff, in the event relief as prayed is denied. Keeping in view the above, application filed by the plaintiff is allowed and the application is disposed off in with following directions (i) Order No. SDM/PGM/R/20/664/66 Dated 15.01.2021 and order No. SDM/PGM/R/20/725-29 Dated 04.2.2021 passed by the SDM Pahalgam are stayed to the extent of sealing of the subject shop till final disposal of the main suit. (ii) That the SDM Pahalgam is directed to de-seal the subject shop after receipt of order which shall be conveyed to defendant no. (ii) That the SDM Pahalgam is directed to de-seal the subject shop after receipt of order which shall be conveyed to defendant no. 3 only after conditions enumerated herein after are compiled by the plaintiff. (iii) That the plaintiff shall file an undertaking that the will hand over the shop back as and when directed by the court and shall keep on depositing the supra mentioned amount fixed by the court in advance on yearly basis till ordered otherwise. (iv) The plaintiff shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- for this year with the Nazir of this court in advance, who on receipt thereof, shall deposit the amount in the shape of FDR in any Nationalized bank and in the event, the matter is not concluded within one year, the plaintiff shall be obliged to deposit continuously the amount as supra directed in advance on yearly basis. The order in hand shall be conveyed only when the aforesaid amount for this year is deposited with the Nazir of the court. (v) That the use and occupation of the subject shop in no manner will be construed as vesting of any right with the plaintiff, if otherwise proved at the conclusion of trail and in the same manner, the payment of amount as supra directed shall not in either ways be construed to divest any right vested with the plaintiff or vest any right with the defendant no. 4. (vi) That the SDM Pahalgam shall submit the outcome of the inquiry in a sealed cover before this court as and when it is concluded by him. It is further clarified that aforesaid arrangement is simply an interim arrangement exercised in terms of section 94 of CPC read with order XXXIX rule I and II of CPC and conditions supra referred can be modified as per the mandate of order XXXIX rule IV of CPC. Need less to mention that the aforesaid arrangement shall remain live till final disposal of the main suit or till ordered otherwise, whichever is earlier while as it will not prevent official defendants to proceed against any private party for dereliction of any obligation under law viz a viz the suit shop, though after securing leave from the court. Any observation made hereinabove is to the extent of deciding the meris of this application alone and shall not have any bearing on the outcome of the main suit. Any observation made hereinabove is to the extent of deciding the meris of this application alone and shall not have any bearing on the outcome of the main suit. Before parting with this order, it is felt necessary to point out that the reasons could not be spelled out from the report of SDM Pahalgam, which necessitated him from changing the draft of the report, dropping in it the factum of having found the registration certificate of the plaintiff hanging in the subject shop without made him to do is not discernable from the report, who in deviation of the directions has not chosen to include Advocate Bakshi in making the report. It being too early to attribute reasons for the conduct of the SDM Pahalgam, through before proceeding ahead, I deem it fit to direct the SDM Pahalgam to appear in person on next date fixed in the main file and explain the circumstances, failing which appropriate orders shall follow”. 7. Appeal, against the order dated 22.03.2021, was dismissed and while dismissing the Appeal, the Appellate court has observed as under:- “…Admittedly the appellant no. 1 herein is the widow of the said Abdul Khaliq Beigh, who in the written statement has raised the plea that the suit shop after demise of her husband Ab. Khaliq Beigh has remained her possession and she gave said suit shop on rent basis to the tenants from time to time and to this extend is also relying on some license deed purported to be executed between her ad some tenants. She further states the grandson/respondents no. 1 herein was never in possession of the said suit shop and it is the appellant no. 1 who was receiving rental of the said suit shop from the tenants till year 2008 i.e. till the suit shop was sealed. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended that the alleged will dead is fraudulent as the said Ab. Khaliq Beigh has never executed a will deed because he was not having the suit shop allotted in the year 2005 when the alleged will deed has been executed. It is only in the year 2006 when the suit shop was allotted to the said Ab. Khaliq Beigh. From the perusal of the certified copy of the will deed it would suggest and show that same has been executed by said Ab. It is only in the year 2006 when the suit shop was allotted to the said Ab. Khaliq Beigh. From the perusal of the certified copy of the will deed it would suggest and show that same has been executed by said Ab. Khaliq Beigh with regard to the suit shop in favour of respondent no. 1 herein who being his grandson. The said will deed has been duly attested and registered by the Sub-Registrar. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 has also bought the attention of this court towards the annexure A which is part of the suit/record and from its perusal it would suggest that 26 numbers of shop keepers have occupied the site from last 10 to 15 years and the said order/communication has shown to be issued on 04.6.1986 wherein the deceased Ab. Khaliq Beigh has also been shown as one of the occupier of the shop. According to Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 the said Ab. Khaliq was although allotted the said shop formally in the year 2006 but he was in possession of the said suit shop for last more that 30 years, otherwise he would have never bequeathed the said suit property in favour of his grandson respondent no. 1 in the year 2005. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants has raised the plea in the written statement that the alleged will deed is out come of fraud and hence the appellants have thrown the challenge of the said will deed in the counter claim filed before the trial court wherein the appellant no. 1 has claiming that she come to know about the fact of execution of will deed when the same was raised by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 herein in the suit. It is pertinent to mention here that another civil matter regarding said suit shop is pending disposal before another court wherein the respondent no. 1 has been subsequently arrayed as the party defendant in the said suit and during the course of arguments the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the appellants were having sufficient knowledge about the execution of will deed when they raised the said plea in the application filed for arraying the respondent no. 1 has been subsequently arrayed as the party defendant in the said suit and during the course of arguments the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the appellants were having sufficient knowledge about the execution of will deed when they raised the said plea in the application filed for arraying the respondent no. 1 herein as the party defendant before another civil court and despite knowledge about the execution of will deed, the appellants have failed to challenge the said will deed till the respondent no. 1 herein filed the suit, challenged the orders of the official respondents before the trial court. Although the appellant no. 1 herein has annexed some license deed purportedly to be executed by her with different persons regarding the rent of the said suit shop, however no any such tenant has raised any plea either before the official respondents or before the civil court that they are aggrieved of any action taken by the authorities regarding the sealing, resealing or de-sealing of the said shop. So even for the sake of arguments it is understandable that the appellant herein was not carrying her business in the suit shop and what is shown in these agreements relied by the appellant is that she is receiving the rental from these tenants and it appears that from last three years i.e. in the year 2018 undisputedly shop has remained closed due to the various orders issued by the official respondents herein. The registered will deed for all practical purposes is valid unless and until same is declared null and void by the competent court of law. The will deed has been executed in the year 2005 and whether the said Ab. Khaliq Beigh was having his possession at the time of execution of will deed over the suit shop and whether the will deed is fraudulent, same is a question of fact which is to be determined by the trial court during the trial of the case. From the perusal of the grounds and contentions raised in the plaint upon which the impugned orders issued by the official defendants have been thrown to challenge before the Ld. From the perusal of the grounds and contentions raised in the plaint upon which the impugned orders issued by the official defendants have been thrown to challenge before the Ld. Trial court coupled with the fact the presence of registered will deed and the other circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to make out prima facie for grant of interim relief. The balance of conveniences is also in favour of the plaintiff because if the relief which has been granted by the Ld. Trial court in favour of the plaintiff would not have been granted the defendant/appellant would at the most suffer loss only which can be compensated by way of money. The appellant at the most would not get rentals from the tenants in future or till disposal or the outcome of the main suit but the ld. Trial court judge has after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly in his wisdom taken care of the interest of the appellants herein as well by issuing interim orders wherein some conditions have been laid as well. From the perusal of the relief granted by the ld. Trial court it would suggest that rents which she would have otherwise received from the tenants would be now deposited by the respondent no. 1 before the Trial court on yearly basis, however, the suit shop has been directed to be handed over to the respondent no.1/plaintiff subject to furnishing of an undertaking that he will hand over shop back as and when directed and he shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- yearly till conclusion of the trial of the case. The order appears to be reasonable which does not warrant any interference from this court. So far as the rights of the parties over suit shop is concerned same has been left to be determined during the trial of the case after issues in this regard are framed. In the back drop what has been discussed herein above the impugned order does not warrants any interference from this court and consequently the appeal in hand is dismissed without costs. The record of the trial court along with this copy of the order be sent down to the trial court below with the direction to proceed in the suit in accordance with the law. The record of the trial court along with this copy of the order be sent down to the trial court below with the direction to proceed in the suit in accordance with the law. The parties through counsels are directed to cause appearance before the trial court on 09.8.2021. the appeal so disposed of shall be consigned to records after due compilation. 8. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 , has culled out following principles with regard to exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: - (a) A petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of superintendence on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; (b) High Courts cannot, at the drop of hat, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the cases, where an alternative remedy would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. (c) While laying down the principle, on the basis of which power of superintendence, embodied, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is exercised by the High court, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has pointed out, in Waryam Singh vs. Amarnath ( AIR 1954 SC 215 ), that a High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence, can interfere with an order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it” within the bounds of their authority”. This power of superintendence cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. (d) Merely, therefore, the fact that an order is incorrect, the High Court may not exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This power of superintendence cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. (d) Merely, therefore, the fact that an order is incorrect, the High Court may not exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the power of superintendence vested in a High Court, under Article of the Constitution of India, can be invoked to remove a patent perversity in an order of the tribunal or court subordinate to the High Court or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. (e) In exercise of its power of superintendence, High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it is a possible view. In another words, the supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has to be very sparingly exercised. (f) The main object of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory. (g) The power of interfere, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheels of justice do not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 9. Both the orders of Trial court and Appellate Court, when examined and analyzed in the context of las laid down by the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty (Supra), are well-reasoned, lucid and comprehensive and, therefore, need not be interfered with. 10. Having regard to what has been stated above, I do not find any merit in this petition warranting interference in the orders passed by Trial court and Appellate court. Petition is accordingly dismissed along with connected CM(s).