The Uttarakhand High Court has reaffirmed that its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are confined to correcting manifest errors of law or perversity in subordinate orders, and that routine or factual findings by consolidation authorities do not justify interference. This judgment upholds established precedent and serves as binding authority for matters arising under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/3013/2025 of AYYUB Vs AKHTARI BEGUM |
| CNR | UKHC010170052025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether High Court can interfere with revisional orders in consolidation proceedings absent manifest error or perversity. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to instances where there is manifest error of law or perversity. The Deputy Director of Consolidation properly considered factual aspects and merely permitted the filing of a certified copy of a key document. Detailed objections regarding secondary evidence, burden of proof, misapplication of procedural law, and natural justice are matters for appreciation by the revisional authority, and absent egregious errors, do not warrant Article 227 interference. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners challenged a 2018 order involving adverse findings on a disputed 1964 sale deed, which was unsuccessfully revised before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director’s 2025 order, remanding the matter and allowing filing of a certified copy, was impugned in this writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand handling consolidation matters |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on the limited scope of Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction |
| Follows | Established principles limiting Article 227 intervention to manifest error or perversity |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ jurisdiction under Article 227 may not be invoked to challenge consolidation orders absent clear material irregularity or perversity.
- Rejects detailed procedural and evidentiary objections where the consolidation authority’s handling stays within jurisdiction and established fact-finding processes.
- Clarifies that permission to submit documents (like certified copies of sale deeds) by lower consolidation authorities is not a ground for writ interference.
- Highlights the proper forum and method—revision or appeal—for contesting factual or mixed questions of law/evidence in consolidation matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered submissions regarding alleged contraventions in accepting secondary evidence, reversing burden of proof, and procedural misapplication.
- It reiterated that the scope of Article 227 is narrow and reserved for palpable legal error or lack of jurisdiction, not for reappraisal of fact or routine procedural objections.
- The Deputy Director of Consolidation gave a well-reasoned order after full consideration of facts, and permitting the filing of a certified sale deed copy was within his discretion.
- The High Court found no manifest error or perversity in the impugned order, thus Article 227 intervention was unwarranted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The Deputy Director of Consolidation erred by accepting uncertified copies as secondary evidence contrary to Section 63, Indian Evidence Act, without required foundational proof.
- The burden of proof (Sections 101–104, Indian Evidence Act) was reversed, requiring petitioners to prove a negative.
- Misapplied Order 1 Rule 8 CPC to what was merely an individual dispute.
- Raised adverse presumption when a document (cheque) was lost/destroyed, contrary to the law.
- Findings were arbitrary, conjectural, and violated natural justice.
Respondent
Not stated in the judgment.
Factual Background
The dispute concerned adverse findings arising from a disputed sale deed dated 18.04.1964. The Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, passed an order on 14.08.2018 unfavorable to the petitioners. The petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar, who dismissed the revision on 16.04.2025 and permitted the respondent to submit a certified copy of the sale deed, remanding the case for further proceedings. The petitioners then filed this writ petition under Article 227 before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment refers to Article 227 of the Constitution of India, outlining the Court’s limited power of supervisory jurisdiction, which may be invoked only for manifest error of law or perversity.
- Section 48(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, dealing with revisional powers of the consolidation authorities.
- Section 63 and Sections 101–104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding secondary evidence and burden of proof, were invoked during arguments but the Court declined to enter merits, viewing them as matters of fact.
- Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, discussed in context of whether representative suits provisions applied, but the Court did not find its misapplication sufficient for writ intervention.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing jurisprudence regarding Article 227’s limited scope was affirmed.