- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sukhbir Narain (Dead) By Lrs v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants instituted writ petitions before the High Court seeking to challenge revisional orders of the Deputy Director, Chakbandi, Uttar Pradesh, Consolidation dated January 9, 1970. Those revisional orders concurred with the views taken by two lower authorities and rejected the appellants' claim for correction of land entries so as to include their names. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions in limine. The present judgment addresses whether there is any reason to interfere with the High Court’s dismissal of those writ petitions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court could have interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the Deputy Director’s revisional orders in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the order.
- Whether the impugned orders disclosed any such apparent error warranting exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the Deputy Director had concurred with both lower authorities and rejected the appellants’ request to correct the entries to include their names. It held that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited: interference is not permissible unless there is an error apparent on the face of the order.
On the material placed before it, the court found that no such apparent error had been shown in the impugned orders that would justify the High Court exercising its powers under Article 227. Given this, and after taking into account all relevant circumstances (without entering into details), the court concluded that the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petitions at the threshold (in limine).
The court also observed that if the appellants had any rights in respect of the lands, they were free to pursue such remedies as were available to them in accordance with law.
Holding and Implications
NO INTERFERENCE; APPEAL EFFECTIVELY DISMISSED — The court declined to interfere with the High Court’s orders dismissing the writ petitions in limine and upheld the position that Article 227 supervisory interference requires an error apparent on the face of the order, which was not shown here.
The direct implication is that the Deputy Director’s revisional orders (rejecting correction of entries to include the appellants’ names) remain undisturbed, and the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petitions stands. The court clarified that the appellants may still pursue any other remedy available in law regarding their claimed rights in the lands. No broader implications or new precedent are discussed in the opinion. There was no order as to costs.
Judgment
We have not been shown any good reason to interfere with the orders passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions instituted by the appellants in order to challenge the revisional orders passed by the Deputy Director, Chakbandi, Uttar Pradesh, Consolidation on January 9, 1970. The Deputy Director has concurred with the view taken by both the lower authorities and has rejected the claim of the appellants for correction of the entries in order to include their names. The High Court could not have interfered with this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless there was any error apparent on the face of the order. It has not been shown that the impugned orders manifest any such error which would warrant the exercise of the powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not propose to go into details as having taking into account all the relevant circumstances we are of the opinion that High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine. If the appellants have any right in respect of these lands, it is open to them to pursue such remedy as may be open to them in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert