Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Mali (Mst.) & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Shagufta Yasmeen – Respondents
OWP No. 1211 of 2015, IA No. 02 of 2016 & IA No. 01 of 2016
Decided on : 06-05-2022
JUDICIAL REVIEW - QUASHMENT OF ORDERS - Article 226, Article 227 - The court discussed the scope and limitations of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that Article 226 is meant for individual grievances while Article 227 serves as a supervisory power over lower courts. The court highlighted that interference under Article 227 is limited to ensuring that lower courts act within their authority and does not extend to correcting mere errors of law or fact. The principles established in previous cases were applied to assess the validity of the lower courts' orders, ultimately influencing the decision to dismiss the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash orders from the Trial Court and Appellate Court regarding a land dispute, claiming that the land was wrongfully gifted and that they had a status quo order from the Settlement Commissioner. The respondent claimed rightful ownership through a court decree and argued that the petitioners had surrendered their claim to the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence to support their claim against the respondent's ownership. It noted that both lower courts had considered the strength of the respondent's case and the principles governing interim relief, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners' claims were insufficient.
Issues: Whether the lower courts acted within their jurisdiction and properly assessed the evidence regarding the land ownership and the validity of the interim orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the High Court's power under Article 227 is not to act as an appellate court but to ensure that lower courts operate within their jurisdiction. It emphasized the need for a strong case to grant interim relief and the importance of the balance of convenience.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' orders and indicating that the petitioners did not demonstrate a sufficient basis for quashing the orders.
JUDGMENT :
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
The petitioners in the instant petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seek quashment of order dated 15.04.2013 and 07.05.2013 (for short impugned orders) passed by the Court of Munsiff, Budgam, (hereinafter for short the Trial Court), and order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the court of District Judge, Budgam (hereinafter for short the Appellate Court)
Petitioners' case
1. Petitioner No. 1 herein claims to be daughter of one Mohammad S/o Karim Mutation number 2127 is claimed to have been attested in favours of Mohammad including the petitioner No. 1 herein, whereby land to the extent of 3 Kanals 01 Marla, under Khasra number 888 situated at Karewa Damodar, Budgam, is stated to have been attested. The said land is stated to have been intended to be sold by the petitioner No. 1 herein in the year, 2013 and while seeking relevant revenue papers for the purpose the petitioner came to know that the land has been shown to have gifted by her to one Nazir Ahmad and Bashir Ahmad pursuant to an oral gift and a mutation No. 4842 attested thereupon whereafter the said land had been gifted orally to one Endowment Finance Company.
2. A revision petition is stated to have been filed by the petitioner No. 1 herein before the Settlement Commissioner against the mutation No. 4842 and an order of status quo is stated to have been passed on 14.07.1993 while staying the said mutation by the Commissioner.
3. The aforesaid Nazir Ahmad & Bashir Ahmad are stated to have sold the said land to various persons in between and lastly stated to have been acquired by the respondent herein pursuant to a decree passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, Budgam. The respondent herein is stated to have filed a suit against petitioners herein for permanent injunction upon coming to know about the order of status quo passed by the Settlement Commissioner before the Trial Court, which Court is stated to have granted an interim restraint order against the petitioners herein in terms of order dated 15.04.2013.
4. The said order dated 15.04.2013 is stated to have been challenged by the petitioners herein by way of an appeal before Principal District Judge, Srinagar. A civil suit is also stated to have been filed by the petitioner No. 1 herein challenging the oral gift, sale deeds as also the decree passed in favour of the respondent herein, in respect of the land in question.
5. The aforesaid appeal is stated to have been disposed of on 22.04.2013, directing the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 23.04.2013, while directing maintenance of status quo and treating the appeal filed by the petitioner No. 1 herein as a written statement to the suit.
6. The Trial Court is stated to have finally disposed of application for interim relief in terms of impugned order dated 07.05.2013 confirming the initial interim order dated 15.04.2013. The Trial Court is stated to have passed an another order on 17.05.2013 directing the SHO concerned to implement the order passed in letter and spirit whereupon the petitioner herein is states to have been evicted from the land in question besides effecting her arrest. The said order is stated to have been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in OWP No. 858/2013 and the said petition is stated to have been disposed of by this Court while opining that the appeal is pending against the final order passed by the Trial Court as petitioner herein had challenged final order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Trial court in an appeal before District Judge, Budgam, and as such directed the District Judge to decide application for interim relief within two weeks in terms of order dated 29.06.2013.
7. The Appellate Court is stated to have instead chosen to decide the appeal itself and dismissed the same after a lapse of two years in terms of impugned order dated 15.05.2015.
8. The impugned orders are being assailed inter alia on the grounds that both the Courts below did not consider th
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring lower courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere merely to correct errors of law or fact. The principles for gra....
The satisfaction of the court regarding prima facie case is crucial for the grant of temporary injunction, and the court may exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to keep subordinate co....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to ensuring subordinate courts function within their legal authority and does not permit the re-appreciation....
The High Court should exercise its supervisory power with great care and caution, intervening only in cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or j....
Supervisory jurisdiction is limited to ensuring tribunals act within their authority and does not permit re-assessing evidence. Once land is legally acquired and possession taken by the state, subseq....
Jurisdiction of Court - Only wrong decision may not be a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of power by subo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
