Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 680 (RAJ)

Satyendra Prakash v. Mahendra Prakash

2023-03-16

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 07.02.2020, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Second Appeal No.6040/2019 and order dated 16.09.2019, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur in First appeal No.114/2016 & judgment dated 07.01.2015, passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur-I, Jaipur (in short 'SDO') in Revenue Suit No.135/2004. 2. Mr. Satyendra Prakash, petitioner present in person, submits that the learned Courts below have not considered and appreciated the facts on record in proper manner. He further submits that the learned trial Court has passed the judgment and decree during the pendency of an interim order staying the proceedings before the trial Court by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 3. Facts on record are that a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction was filed by the respondent-party before the Court of SDO, Jaipur-I, Jaipur stating therein that both the parties are of the same family and have equal share in the land in question. The SDO Jaipur-I, Jaipur after framing the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and recording oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 07.01.2015 and declared the plaintiff No.2 to 4 as khatedar of half share of land bearing Khasra No.23/2 Rakba 26 Bigha 3 Biswa at Village Begas, Tehsil and District Jaipur. 4. Against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2020, passed by the Court of SDO Jaipur-I, Jaipur, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. The Appellate Authority after considering the arguments of the parties and the material available on record before it, dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial Court has not committed any error in declaring the plaintiff-respondent as khatedar of half share of the land in question. 5. Again the petitioners preferred the second appeal under Section 224 (2) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was also dismissed observing that there is nothing on record to establish that the findings of the learned Courts below are perverse or without any evidence. 6. Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel" (2022) 4 SCC 181 has summarized the principles of nature and scope of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 6. Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel" (2022) 4 SCC 181 has summarized the principles of nature and scope of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Hon'ble the Apex Court in para Nos.15 & 16 in the said judgment has observed as under:- "15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article T17 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. 1 The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article T2J, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.2 has observed:- (SCC pp. 101-102, para 6) "6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to." 7. The petitioners have failed to point out any error apparent placed on record and perversity in finding recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence on record. 8. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. All the other pending applications also stand disposed of.