Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Interference with concurrent findings – Held: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by reappreciating evidence and substituting factual findings without perversity or jurisdictional error – Authorities' findings on land status restored – [Para 17-22]

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 198(4) – Revenue entries – Johad (pond) v. Oosar land – Held: Patta found fictitious, and revenue entries were incorrect – Land was historically a pond and excluded from the consolidation scheme – [Para 3-6]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Permanent Injunction – Ex-parte decree – Held: The High Court erred in setting aside a permanent injunction granted by the Civil Judge – Injunction restored – [Para 23]

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226
• U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 198(4)
• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Permanent Injunction

Subjects:

Writ Jurisdiction – Revenue Entries – Patta – Factual Findings – Perversity – Land Classification – Consolidation Scheme – Permanent Injunction

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation: Dispute over land recorded as Johad (pond) in revenue records since 1970.
2. Who is asking the court and for what remedy? Ajay Singh, appellant, sought correction of revenue records and cancellation of the respondent’s patta.
3. Reason for filing the case: Patta granted to Khacheru (respondent) was alleged to be fictitious, with revenue entries manipulated. The land served as a water reservoir.
4. What has already been decided until now?
   • Additional District Magistrate (2004) canceled the patta.
   • Additional Commissioner (2006) upheld the cancellation.
   • Civil Judge (2005) granted an ex-parte permanent injunction.
   • High Court (2013) reversed the findings, treating the land as Oosar instead of Johad.

Issues:

a. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to reappreciate concurrent factual findings?
b. Whether the patta granted in 1981-82 was valid?
c. Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the permanent injunction?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant: Revenue records historically classified the land as a pond. The patta was fictitious and no allotment file existed.
• Respondent: The land was Oosar, and its classification as Johad was due to confusion. Patta was valid under revenue records.

Decision:

• High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by interfering with factual findings.
• Revenue records upheld – the land was correctly recorded as Johad (pond).
• The permanent injunction in favor of the appellant was restored.

Ratio:

• High Courts cannot act as an appellate authority in writ jurisdiction unless findings suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error.
• Concurrent factual findings by revenue authorities cannot be overturned without strong evidence of error.