Supreme Court Holds High Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence to Reverse Concurrent Revenue Findings on Land Status

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol heard appeals against an Allahabad High Court judgment and order which had set aside concurrent findings of revenue and revisional authorities declaring a disputed parcel of land as a johad (pond). The appeals arose from a long-running revenue and civil dispute over Khasra No.103 (earlier Khasra No.84) in Ghaziabad, where competing claims invoked consolidation records, alleged patta entries and a civil injunction.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s January 17, 2013 judgment and the May 13, 2013 review order, and restored the findings of the revenue authorities and the Collector that the land was shown as a johad in revenue records and had been rightly excluded from the consolidation scheme. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own factual conclusions where the authorities below had recorded concurrent, non-perverse findings. The Court observed that "the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In our considered view, the High Court has committed an error of law and facts in setting aside the concurrent findings in both the impugned judgment and order. There was no basis for the High Court to ignore the findings of the authorities and come to its own conclusion by appreciating the evidence on record. The same was outside the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any perversity or illegality afflicting the findings of the authorities." The Court further cautioned that a permanent injunction was "an order of substance and ought to be treated as such" and should not be set aside in a cursory manner.

Background: The dispute dated to revenue entries from 1970 which recorded the disputed land as "Johad (Pond)". In 2003 a claimant relied on an alleged patta shown in revenue records of 1981–82 and asserted a proprietary right as bhumidhar, contending the land was "Oosar" (usara) and that objections were time-barred. The appellant invoked Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, contending the land had been a pond used as a village water reservoir and had been excluded from consolidation.

The Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector examined Tehsil records, found no allotment file supporting the alleged patta, recorded inconsistencies in Khatauni signatures and dates, held the entries to be fictitious, cancelled the patta and ordered correction of revenue entries (order dated August 27, 2004). The Additional Commissioner, Meerut, dismissed the revision (order dated September 13, 2006) and rejected a review application (order dated December 29, 2006). Separately, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghaziabad, passed an ex parte permanent injunction in November 2005 in favour of the appellant restraining the respondent from disturbing villagers' use of the land as a johad.

The respondent obtained writ relief in the High Court, which held that the land had been mistakenly recorded as johad and was in fact usara, and set aside the concurrent revenue findings. The High Court also dismissed the civil review petition, observing that the Collector's order had been set aside and the ex parte decree therefore became non est. The Supreme Court found this to be an impermissible reappreciation of evidence in writ jurisdiction, applying settled precedents including Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj and Krishnanand v. Director of Consolidation, and restored the revenue findings and the basis for the civil injunction. The appeals were allowed and the impugned High Court orders were set aside; pending application, if any, was directed to be disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 9 (SLP (C) Nos. 34407-34408 of 2013) Case Title: Ajay Singh v. Khacheru and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]