Bombay High Court
Shri Laxman Fakira Jondhale vs Shri Suresh Mahadu Jondhale And Ors on 14 June, 2024
Author: Gauri Godse
Bench: Gauri Godse
Digitally
signed by
2024:BHC-AS:23450
IRESH
IRESH
MASHAL
MASHAL Date:
2024.06.14
21:19:22
+0530
1.4682.01 wp.docx
Iresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4682 OF 2001
Shri. Laxman Fakira Jondhale
deceased through Legal Heirs
1A) Shri. Jagannath Laxman Jondhale
Age:44 years, Occu: Agriculture
1B) Shri. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Jondhale
Age:44 years, Occu: Agriculture
1C) Smt. Tarabai Laxman Jondhale
Age: 75 years, Occu: Agriculture
All 1 to 3 R/at : At/post-Jaulke, Taluka-Dindori,
Distrit Nashik.
1D) Smt. Mathura Dattatraya Jadhav
Age: 51 years, Occu: Agriculture
R/at: At/Post-Khadak-Sukena
Taluka - Dindori, District: Nashik.
1E) Smt. Mangla Prakash Ugale,
Age: 49 years, Occu: Agriculture
R/at : At/Post-Jaulke, Taluka-Dindori,
District - Nashik.
1F) Smt. Pushpa Sanjay Ganore,
Age: 46 years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/at: At/Post-Khadak-Sukena,
Taluka Dindori, District - Nashik.
1G) Smt. Shobha Shivaji Gohad,
Age: 41 years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/at: Vharedarna, Post-Darna-Sangvi,
Taluka - Niphad, District - Nashik. ....Petitioners
Vs.
1/21
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 :::
1.4682.01 wp.docx
1) Shri. Suresh Mahadu Jondhale
2) Shri. Hiraman Mahadu Jondhale
since deceased through Legal Heirs
2A) Anusayabai Hiraman Jondhale
Age: 53 years, Occu: Household,
2B) Tukaram Hiraman Jondhale
Age 27 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
2C) Sandip Hiraman Jondhale
Age: 26 years, Occu: Agriculturist
2D) Rani Hiraman Jondhale
Age: 22 years, Occu: Household,
All above Residing at: Jaulke,
Taluka -Dindori, District - Nashik
3) Shri. Balkrishna Mahadu Jondhale
Since deceased through legal heirs
3A) Namdeo Balkrishna Jondhale,
Age: 27 years, Occu: Agriculturist
3B) Jaya Balkrishna Jondhale
Age: 23 years, Occu: Household
3C) Janabai Balkrishna Jondhale
Age: 47 years, Occu: Housewife,
All above residing at: Jaulke,
Taluka - Dindori, District - Nashik.
4) Shri. Ashok Mahadu Jondhale
5) Smt. Parvatabai Mahadu Jondhale
since deceased through LR's
Respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 are the
legal Heirs of Respondent No. 5
6) Smt. Sushila Shivaji Bhor
R/o Village Jaulke Dindori,
Tal. Dindori, Dist. Nashik. ....Respondents
Mr. Girish Agrawal a/w Ms. Naiana Boraste a/w Mr. Shubham
2/21
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 :::
1.4682.01 wp.docx
Jangam for the petitioners
Ms. Rukmini Khairnar a/w Mr. P. N. Joshi (On VC) for
respondents
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J
RESERVED ON: 4th APRIL 2024
PRONOUNCED ON: 14th JUNE 2024
JUDGMENT:
1. This petition challenges the order passed by the Additional Commissioner in a review application, allowing the revision application filed by the respondents under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ('MLRC'). The dispute between the parties in the present petition is in connection with the respondents' claim of tenancy rights through Mhadu Bhau Jondhale.
2. The dispute between the parties is with regard to 4.30 H-R out of 12.90 H-R of Gat No. 218 (old survey no. 40) (said land). Ramnath Marwadi was the original landlord of the said land. One Bhau Dhondu Jondhale was cultivating the said land as a tenant. On 18th September 1957, the names of Bhau Jondhale's sons, Mahadu and Fakira were entered in the revenue record by way of mutation entry no. 384 as joint tenants of the said land. The name of Mahadu Jondhale was deleted by mutation entry no. 448 dated 3/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx 27th August 1959. It is the petitioners' case that said mutation entry was based on an inquiry under section 40 of Bombay (now Maharashtra) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('Tenancy Act'). It is the petitioners' case that since Mahadu was not cultivating the said land, only the name of Fakira was retained as a tenant, and the name of Mahadu was deleted. The said mutation entry no. 448 was certified on 19th April 1960.
3. By order dated 31st March 1960, the order under section 32G was issued in the name of Fakira. Entry of the said order was made in the revenue record by way of mutation entry no. 507. According to the petitioners, they paid the purchase price and the certificate under section 32M was issued on 2nd February 1994.
4. On 30th January 1994, respondents filed an application to enter their names as heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu. By order dated 23rd February 1994, names of respondents were entered as heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu by way of mutation entry no. 2074. The petitioners raised an objection to the said mutation entry. Considering the objections raised by the petitioners, mutation entry 2074 was rejected on 31 st March 1995 by the Circle Officer. Hence, the respondents filed RTS Appeal No. 4/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx 55 of 1995 before the Sub-Divisional Officer('SDO'). By order dated 20th December 1996, SDO allowed the appeal and the order cancelling mutation entry 2074 was set aside, and the mutation entry 2074 was certified. Hence, the petitioners filed RTS Appeal No. 29 of 1997 before the learned Collector. By order dated 21 st November 1997, the Collector allowed the appeal, and the order by SDO in favour of respondents was set aside. Hence, respondents filed RTS Revision No. 71 of 1998 before the Additional Commissioner. By Judgment and Order dated 23 rd April 1999, revision application was allowed, and the order by Additional Collector was set aside, and the SDO's order in favour of respondents was restored. The petitioners filed a review application before the Additional Commissioner, who rejected the review application. Hence, the order in favour of the respondents was confirmed. Hence, the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed under section 32G in favour of Fakira on 31 st March 1960 was never challenged by the respondents. He submitted that the name of Mahadu was deleted by mutation entry no. 448 certified on 19th April 1960; however, the said mutation entry was also never 5/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx challenged. Thus, in view of the impugned orders passed under the MLRC, orders passed under the Tenancy Act, fixing purchase price in favour of Fakira, and issuance of 32M certificate are sought to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed a civil suit to protect their possession. The civil suit was decreed, and the respondents were restrained from interfering with the possession and cultivation of the petitioners over the suit land. Respondents challenged the said decree by way of a first appeal. However, the first appeal was dismissed, and the decree in favour of the petitioners was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court, the respondents preferred Second Appeal No. 931 of 2022 in this Court. The said second appeal is still pending and no orders have been passed in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that even in the civil proceedings, the petitioners' tenancy rights and their possession and cultivation over the said land are accepted.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that respondents are not entitled to claim any right in the said land by 6/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx relying upon mutation entry no. 384, by which the names of Mahadu and Fakira were entered as joint tenants. He submitted that by mutation entry 448, the name of Mahadu is deleted, and hence, respondents are not entitled to claim any right based on earlier mutation entry 384.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that in the RTS proceedings initiated by the respondents, the revenue authorities have passed orders rendering the orders under the Tenancy Act in favour of the petitioner to be redundant. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that without adopting the appropriate remedy under the Tenancy Act to challenge the orders passed in favour of the petitioners, the respondents approached the revenue authorities. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the orders passed by revenue authorities in favour of the respondents deserve to be quashed and set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order under section 32G was passed on 31 st March 1960. However, a certificate under section 32M is issued in the year 1994. Hence, the conclusiveness of the tenancy rights of petitioners, if any, is only in the year 1994. Mutation entry 384, entering the names of 7/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx Mahadu and Fakira as joint tenants, was never challenged. Hence, the subsequent mutation entry no. 448, based only on a panchnama, thereby rendering the effect of earlier mutation entry ineffective, is void and would not defeat the rights of Mahadu as a joint tenant in respect of the said land. He submitted that by the impugned order, the names of heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu are entered in the revenue record. Hence, the conclusiveness in view of the orders passed in the revenue proceedings is against the landlord and not against the co-tenant.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents thus submitted that the review application is therefore rightly rejected by the Additional Commissioner by confirming the SDO's order passed in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in view of the impugned order, the names of respondents are entered in the revenue record as heirs and legal representatives of deceased Mahadu. Hence, the impugned order does not disturb the certificate issued under section 32M.
11. To support the contentions with regard to the validity of the mutation entry no. 448, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without issuing notice to heirs and legal 8/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx representatives of Mahadu, the name of Mahadu could not have been deleted in the revenue proceedings. He submitted that the Rules of 1971 framed under the MLRC provide for issuing notice before making necessary entries in the revenue record. He thus submitted that mutation entry no. 448 certified without issuing notice to the heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu is void and would not take away the rights of Mahadu as a joint tenant. He submitted that once the name of Mahadu was entered in the revenue record as a joint tenant of the said land on 18 th September 1957, it was clear that Mahadu's tenancy rights were protected. Hence, without following due procedure under the Tenancy Act, Mahadu's tenancy rights cannot be defeated by a subsequent mutation entry no. 448. Hence, even if mutation entry 448 is not challenged, the same would not invalidate Mahadu's tenancy rights.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents' claim of being heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu is not disputed. Hence, no fault can be found in the impugned orders passed under the provisions of MLRC for entering respondents' names as heirs and legal representatives of 9/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx Mahadu. He submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the orders passed under the provisions of MLRC would amount to disturbing the effect of orders passed under the Tenancy Act and the subsequent certificate issued under section 32M in the name of the petitioners. He, thus, submitted that rival tenancy claims of the parties can be agitated only in tenancy proceedings. He thus submitted that no interference is called for in the petition for invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. I have considered the submissions of both parties. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is necessary to examine the relevant facts. Admittedly, Bhau Dhondu was the original tenant, who expired on 1st June 1965. Fakira and Mahadu are sons of the deceased Bhau. Undisputed mutation entry no. 384 recording the names of Mahadu and Fakira as joint tenants indicates that Mahadu had tenancy rights in the said land. It is not in dispute that mutation entry no. 448 was effected without issuing notice to Mahadu. Mahadu expired on 14 th May 1977. During the lifetime of Mahadu, it appears that the 32G Order was passed in favour of Fakira. It is the petitioner's case that immediately after the order dated 31st March 1960 was passed under section 32G, the 10/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx purchase price was paid by the petitioners. However, it is not disputed that the 32M certificate was issued only on 2 nd February 1994, i.e. after Mahadu's death.
14. In the meantime, respondents filed an application on 30 th January 1994 for entering their names as heirs and legal representatives of deceased Mahadu. Since there was an objection raised by the petitioners, mutation entry 2074, recording names of respondents as heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu, was rejected. However, in an appeal filed by the respondents, SDO accepted mutation entry no. 2074, and the same was certified. The collector had allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. However, the Additional Commissioner allowed the respondents' revision, dismissed the petitioners' appeal and confirmed SDO's order certifying mutation entry 2074 in favour of the respondents.
15. The aforesaid dates are not disputed. There is no record to show that mutation entry 448 deleting the name of Mahadu was effected by service of notice to Mahadu. I do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that mutation entry 448 was effected based on an inquiry made under 11/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx section 40 of the Tenancy Act. There is nothing produced on record to indicate that any inquiry was made under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act. Mutation Entry 384 in the name of Mahadu entering his name as a joint tenant with Fakira on 18 th September 1957 is sufficient evidence to indicate that Mahadu was cultivating the said land. Hence, Fakira had no exclusive right in the said land. Thus, by way of mere mutation entry, Mahadu's tenancy rights could not have been cancelled. It is well established principle of law that an agricultural tenancy can be cancelled only by way of the due procedure prescribed under the Tenancy Act. Hence, in revenue proceedings, the tenancy rights of Mahadu cannot be terminated.
16. Learned SDO and learned Additional Commissioner, while accepting the case of respondents, held that mutation entry 448 deleting Mahadu's name without issuing notice is void, Mahadu's tenancy rights were never terminated by any order under the Tenancy Act, and there was no record of any surrender of tenancy rights by Mahadu. SDO and Additional Commissioner have referred to the record of tenancy proceedings and observed that the record indicated receipts signed by Fakira in favour of Mahadu on account of the purchase price. Thus, both authorities relied 12/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx upon the undisputed mutation entry 384, entering Mahadu's name as a joint tenant and held that respondents being heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu were entitled to get their names recorded in the record of right. The mutation entry 448 relied upon by the petitioners is disbelieved on the ground that the same is a void entry and is thus cancelled by the learned Additional Commissioner by exercising revisional powers under Section 257 of MLRC.
17. Though there is an order passed under section 32G fixing the purchase price in the name of Fakira, the same would not defeat the tenancy rights of Mahadu in the absence of a valid termination of joint tenancy. It is not disputed that the order under section 32G was passed on 31st March 1960, but the 32M certificate was issued only on 2nd February 1994, i.e., after Mahadu's death and after the respondents applied for entering their names as heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu.
18. By the impugned order, the tenancy orders are not disturbed. Respondents filed an application to enter their names as heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu. Thus, by holding the necessary inquiry contemplated under the provisions of MLRC, the names of 13/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx respondents were directed to be entered as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Mahadu. Thus, there is no substance in the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners that the order passed under section 32G and subsequent certificate issued under section 32M to the petitioner is disturbed by the impugned order. Mere recording names of respondents as heirs of Mahadu in the revenue record, will not ipso facto grant any higher rights to the respondents than of Mahadu.
19. Tenancy rights of the parties can be adjudicated only in appropriate proceedings under the Tenancy Act. Mere issuance of an order under section 32G only in the name of Fakira would not disentitle the respondents to get their names entered in the revenue record as heirs and legal representatives of deceased Mahadu. The mutation entry 384 recording Mahadu's name as the joint tenant was never under challenge. The argument of the petitioners based on section 40 of the Tenancy Act is of no assistance in the present case. Section 40 of the Tenancy Act deals with the continuance of tenancy on the death of the tenant. The plain reading of section 40 of the Tenancy Act indicates that when a tenant other than a permanent tenant dies, the landlord 14/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx shall be deemed to have continued the tenancy on the same terms and conditions on which such tenant was holding it at the time of his death, to such heirs of the deceased tenant as may be willing to continue the tenancy.
20. It is not brought on record that mutation entry 448 was effected after the service of notice to Mahadu. It is not even the petitioners' case that Mahadu was heard before effecting mutation entry 448. Mutation Entry 384 is not under challenge, Thus, once Mahadu was a joint tenant in view of mutation entry, revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to decide the tenancy rights of Mahadu in the proceedings under the provisions of MLRC. Thus, I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned SDO and Additional Commissioner that mutation entry 448 deleting Mahadu's name is a void entry.
21. Admittedly, no proceedings under the Tenancy Act were any time initiated and decided with regard to the rights of Mahadu. Thus, the deletion of Mahadu's name in the revenue proceedings would not disentitle the respondents from getting their names entered as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Mahadu. It is important to note here that mutation entry 384, 15/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx effected for mutating the name of Mahadu as a joint tenant in the said land, is never challenged. The reasons recorded by SDO vide Judgment and Order dated 20th December 1996 cannot be faulted. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the reasons recorded by the learned SDO and the Additional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has thus rightly confirmed the reasons recorded by the learned SDO. The review application filed by the petitioners is also rightly rejected by the Additional Commissioner.
22. The decree of injunction passed by the Civil Court relied upon by the petitioners would not defeat the respondents' rights claimed through Mahadu, who was admittedly a joint tenant on the tiller's date. The scope of inquiry of the civil proceedings and the scope of inquiry under the MLRC are different. Hence, respondents are entitled to get their names entered in the revenue record as heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu. Thus, the rival contentions of the parties on tenancy rights can be adjudicated under the Tenancy Act. Recording names of respondents as heirs of Mahadu will not amount to adjudication of the rival tenancy claims of the parties.
23. The decision of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel 16/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx for the petitioners in the case of Shrikant Gangaram Teli vs. Shri Bhaskar Narayan Kuvalekar and Ors1 is not applicable to the facts of this case. The legal principle in the said decision is with regard to conclusive proof of title and possession based on the order passed under section 32G and the certificate issued under section 32M. The impugned orders are passed under the provisions of MLRC. There cannot be a debate on the legal principles laid down by this court in the decision of, Shrikant Gangaram Teli. However, same would not affect the rights of the respondents claiming to be heirs and legal representatives of deceased Mahadu.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon following decisions:
Chandrakant Baban Motkari and Ors vs. Gotiram Laxman Motkari (D) by LRs and Ors2, Baburao Bapuji Rale (Since deceased) Through LRs and Ors vs. Jaba Dhondiram Rale (Since deceased) Through LRs and Ors 3, Smt. Savitra Bapu Shinde and Ors vs. Rau Rama Shinde and Anr 4, Narendra Jagannath Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors 5 and Rajaram Totaram Patel vs. Mahipat Mahadu Patel and others 6.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decision in 1 1998(4) ALL MR 403 2 2019(5) ALL MR 968 (S.C.) 3 AIR Online 2019 Bom 1024 4 2006(1) ALL MR 423 5 2003(1) ALL MR 803 6 AIR 1967 Bombay 408 17/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx the case of Chandrakant Baban Motkari to support his contention that 32M certificate is conclusive proof of purchase of property. The decision in the case of Baburao Bapuji Rale is relied upon to contend that once there is a mutation entry recorded based on the certificate issued under section 32M, later it cannot be set aside in the proceedings initiated under the MLRC. He relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Savitra Bapu Shinde to contend that unless the order under section 32G and the certificate issued under section 32M is challenged under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, its effects cannot be negated by orders under the provisions of MLRC. The decision in the case of Narendra Jagannath Joshi is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners to support his contention that certificate issued under 32M is binding on all the parties, including the authorities exercising powers under the MLRC. He, thus, submitted that once orders are passed under the Tenancy Act under section 32G, the authorities under MLRC could not have directed entering the names of respondents to claim having tenancy rights through Mahadu. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in the case of Rajaram Totaram Patel to support his contentions that the exclusive jurisdiction, to decide the issue of 18/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx co-tenancy is with the tenancy authorities under section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act. Hence, the authorities while exercising powers under MLRC have no jurisdiction to decide the issue of co-tenancy as claimed by the respondents.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention that 32M certificate is conclusive proof of title, possession and that no other court or authority can examine into the aspect of tenancy:
Pushpalata Narayan Thorbole vs. Purshottam Dattatray Prabhu (D) thr. LRs7, Smt. Ramkuwar w/o Ramkrishan Pallod (deceased thr. L.Rs.) vs. Shri. Krushnanath Sajan Belhekar & Anr8, Saraswatibai Trimbak Gaikwad vs. Damodhar D. Motiwale & Ors 9 and Vaijinath S/o Yeshwanta Jadhav Deceased by L.R. and Ors vs. Afsar Begum, Wife of Nadimuddin, Deceased by L.Rs and Ors10.
27. None of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners concern the scope of revenue proceedings. There cannot be any debate on the legal principles settled in the aforesaid decisions on conclusiveness of order under section 32G and certificate under Section 32M. However, the conclusiveness 7 2019(3) ALL MR 179 8 2010 (5) ALL MR 529 9 2002 (2) ALL MR 944 (S.C.) 10 2020 SAR (Civ) 461 19/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx shall be qua the landlord. In the present case, there is no adjudication done under the Tenancy Act, regarding joint tenancy of Mahadu and Fakira as recorded in the undisputed mutation entry No. 384. Hence, the legal principles settled in the said decisions are not applicable to the controversy involved in the present case.
28. In the decision of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil11 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The relevant extracts from paragraph 49 are as under:
"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:
........
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh [AIR 1954 SC 215] , followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it, "within the bounds of their authority".
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the 11 (2010) 8 SCC329 20/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 ::: 1.4682.01 wp.docx jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
(h) 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 other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.
(emphasis added)
29. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the authorities. I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded in the impugned orders. Hence, this is not a fit case to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the well- reasoned orders passed by the learned SDO and the Additional Commissioner.
30. The petition is devoid of any merits. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
[GAURI GODSE, J.] 21/21 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:15:39 :::