The High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 extends to both administrative and judicial functions of lower judiciary and tribunals, allowing it to re-appreciate factual aspects and intervene when a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction it does have.

JUDGMENT :

L. Narayana Swamy, J.

These appeals are filed by the State against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.01.2013, in W.P.Nos.43477 - 43480 of 2012, wherein the learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions of both the parties to the lis allowed the petitions with liberty to the State to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, if need arises. Being aggrieved by the same, these writ appeals are filed.

2. The sum and substance of the appeals are that, the appellants - State contends that the respondents claiming to be the grantees have committed an act of fraud in respect of the lands in survey No.21 of Poojanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. It is the submission that on 23.10.1974, 5 acres of land was granted in favour of the Horticulture department. But in reality, the Horticulture Department was in occupation of 18 acres and 6 guntas in Sy.No.21. Moreover, it is contended that the private respondents made false representation by stating that they are in possession of the lands since 20 years, though unauthorisedly cultivating the same. The grievance of the respondents, however is that, without notice, the RRT Sheristedar, deleted the names of the respondents from the Record of Rights and entered the name of Government, by order dated 26.01.2004, on a public holiday i.e., Republic Day. When the respondents approached the Assistant Commissioner, complaining of the removal of their names from the RTC, the Assistant Commissioner sought a report from the Tahsildar. Upon hearing all the aggrieved parties, including the Horticulture Department, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 31.03.2006 declaring that the grant of 17 acres to seven farmers was in accordance with law and therefore, directed the Tahsildar to re-enter the names of the respondents in the RTC.

3. Since the Tahsildar did not comply with the directions of the Assistant Commissioner, the respondents once again approached the Assistant Commissioner. In the meanwhile, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was questioned before the Deputy Commissioner, by persons unconnected with the matter. It is submitted that during the course of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, a letter dated 17.07.2007 written by the Deputy Director of Horticulture to the Director of Horticulture, was placed on record. It is contended that in the said letter, the Deputy Director had in fact admitted that what was granted to the Horticulture Department was only 5 acres in Sy.No.21 and the said 5 acres was made over to the Regional Occupational Health Centre (South), Indian Council of Medical Research and beyond that 5 acres, the Horticulture Department was not in possession of any portion of Sy.No.21. In the meanwhile, the Horticulture Department constituted a two Member Enquiry Committee consisting of the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division, as Chairman and the other Member being the Director of Horticulture Department. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that constitution of the Committee itself is questionable since an interested party i.e., the Director of Horticulture Department forms a part of the Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee submitted a report before the State Government. Consequent to the same, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, directed the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the grant made in favour of the respondents herein. Following the said directions, the Deputy Commissioner, despite the pendency of Revision Petition No.150/2006-07, issued show-cause notice dated 02.06.2009 to the respondents. The respondents, challenged the show cause notice before this Court in W.P.Nos.3362- 3363/2010. The said petition was dismissed with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to give opportunity to the respondents and thereafter dispose of the show-cause notice in accordance with law.

4. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner, by order d