The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or patent perversity. It cannot be exercised as an appellate court to re-weigh facts, and a party alleging a jurisdictional bar due to land status must provide specific, definitive evidence to substantiate that claim.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Partition of land - Supervisory jurisdiction - Limited scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact - Necessity of providing precise evidence to establish jurisdictional bar regarding transition of land category - Burden of proof. (Paras 15, 16)

(B) Jurisdiction - Revenue forums - Land status - Lack of specific proof identifying the exact area or classification of land declared non-agricultural precludes the argument that the forum lacks authority to adjudicate. (Para 17)

(C) Appellate Review - Court exercising supervisory control must not act as a forum for re-weighing evidence or re-evaluating factual matrices already scrutinized by subordinate authorities unless there is patent illegality or manifest perversity. (Para 19)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involved a claim for the partition of a joint land ownership. The petitioners contested the proceedings by asserting that significant portions of the land had been legally converted to non-agricultural use, thereby divesting the revenue authorities of jurisdiction. They further claimed the original suit was flawed due to the non-joinder of necessary parties who had purchased parts of the property. The subordinate revenue courts repeatedly examined these objections, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to a defined residual share after accounting for prior land sales and confirming that the relevant purchasers were indeed part of the legal record. These concurrent findings were challenged by the petitioners.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the subordinate authorities had properly analyzed the evidence, including documentation of sale deeds and land registers. The jurisdictional objection was deemed unsubstantiated due to a failure to specify the exact lands affected by the non-agricultural status. The courts below adhered to the requirements regarding the inclusion of necessary parties and correctly calculated the remaining ownership shares.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the revenue court lost its jurisdiction over the property due to changes in land status, whether the partition suit was maintainable despite prior partial sales, and whether the subordinate findings of fact were susceptible to interference under supervisory jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that supervisory jurisdiction under the Constitution is not a substitute for an appeal process and cannot be used to re-examine contested facts. Because the petitioners failed to demonstrate a jurisdictional defect or show that the findings were perverse, there was no ground to interfere with the orders of the lower revenue forums.

Result: Petition dismissed.

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Nainital in Second Appeal No. 63 of 2023-24 in Smt. Anandi Devi & Others vs. Ganga Singh & Others, the judgment and order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Kumaun Mandal, Nainital in Appeal No. 110 of 2022-23, and the preliminary and final orders dated 10.08.2023 and 06.04.2018 respectively passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Class/SDM, Ramnagar (Nainital) in Revenue Suit No. 22/134 of 2012-13 in Ganga Singh vs. Paan Singh & Others. According to the petitioners, the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and non-application of judicial mind, thereby warranting interference by this Court.

2. The dispute pertains to land measuring 11.513 hectares forming part of Khata No. 010 situated in Village Lamachaur, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. In the year 2001, respondent no. 1 Ganga Singh along with his mother Smt. Heera Devi instituted a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act seeking division of holding and claiming a 1/3rd share in the aforesaid property. The petitioners, who were arrayed as defendants, filed a detailed written statement asserting that respondent no. 1 had already sold substantial portions of his share and that mutations had been duly effected in favour of multiple purchasers. It was thus contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that respondent no. 1 was not entitled to claim 1/3rd share after having alienated most of his holding. It was further pleaded that a significant portion of the disputed land had been declared non-agricultural under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act, and therefore the claim of equal division of agricultural land was untenable. Despite these objections, the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Ramnagar, proceeded to decide the matter ex parte, passing a preliminary order on 28.04.2015, followed by a final order dated 06.04.2018, declaring respondent no. 1 entitled to a 1/3rd share. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaun, who, by judgment dated 18.06.2019, set aside the ex parte orders and remanded the matter with directions to afford proper opportunity of evidence and hearing.

3. However, after remand, the Assistant Collector passed a preliminary order dated 25.11.2020, again reiterating that respondent no. 1 had a 1/3rd. The petitioners again approached the Commissioner by filing Appeal No. 31/07 (2020-21), whereupon the Commissioner, by order dated 19.10.2022, again set aside the preliminary order and directed the Assistant Collector to decide the matter afresh by framing appropriate issues on the objections raised by the petitioners. After this second remand, the Assistant Collector passed a fresh preliminary order dated 10.08.2023, yet again allocating 1/3rd share to respondent no. 1. The petitioners challenged this order before the Commissioner in Appeal No. 110 of 2022-23, but the same was dismissed on 05.06.2024. The petitioners then filed a second appeal (No. 63 of 2023-24) before the Board of Revenue, which too was dismissed on 27.01.2025. Having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioners have approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the entire proceedings before the revenue court suffer from a fundamental jurisdictional defect, as large portions of the land in dispute have long been declared non-agricultural under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The learned counsel submits that once such declaration is made, the land ceases to remain “agricultural land” within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the UPZA & LR Act, and consequently the revenue court stands divested of jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for division of holding under Section 176 . It is submi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 3587

Cases Referred (2)