SC stated that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should not re-appreciate evidence unless the original order exceeded its jurisdiction or the findings were patently perverse.

 

HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA & ORS .… APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)

 

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9697-9698 OF 2014

 

HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA & ANR. … PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

PRAKHAR MISHRA & ANR. … ALLEGED

CONTEMNOR(S)/RESPONDENT(S)

 

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 209-210 OF 2021

 

 

In the given judgment, the appellants filed appeals against the order and judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad. The relevant facts are that the appellants are the bhoomidars (landholders) of a subject land used for agricultural purposes since a permanent lease was executed in their favor in 1952. Part of the land was declared as reserved forest, leading to an eviction drive of the local inhabitants.

To address the claims of the local inhabitants, a High Powered Committee and Forest Settlement Officer were appointed to adjudicate the claims. The Forest Settlement Officer found that the appellants had a rightful claim over the land as they had been in possession of it prior to a specified date. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents against this order.

Subsequently, the Forest Department filed a review and an application for recall, both of which were dismissed. However, the High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Forest Department and directed the eviction of the appellants. The appellants filed a review petition, which was dismissed. However, the eviction was stayed until they could approach the Supreme Court.

The main issues considered by the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the relief granted in a previous judgment, Banwasi Seva Ashram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, was applicable only to SC/ST/other backward communities.
2. Whether the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could re-appreciate evidence to reach its findings.

Regarding the first issue, the Supreme Court interpreted the Banwasi Seva Ashram judgment and concluded that the relief granted, which allowed claims to be heard by the competent authority, was not limited to specific communities. It held that the right to be heard should be granted to all claimants of the land, regardless of their community status. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the rights of all forest-dwelling communities, including those who may not be officially recognized as such.

Regarding the second issue, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should not re-appreciate evidence unless the original order exceeded its jurisdiction or the findings were patently perverse. As the lower courts had reached concurrent findings in favor of the appellants, the High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence and reached a different conclusion.

Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and confirmed the orders of the Forest Settlement Officer and Additional District Judge in favor of the appellants. The appeals were allowed, and the contempt petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed. Since the dispute has been resolved and the judgment has been passed in favor of the appellants, there is no need to pursue or proceed with the contempt petitions. Therefore, the contempt petitions have lost their purpose or significance in light of the final decision and are no longer applicable.

5 July 2023

 

Cases Referred

1.      Banwasi Sewa Case: In this Case where certain Adivasi communities were being evicted from their homes on grounds of the land being subject to a Section 4 notification under the Forest Act. The judgment mentions that in the Banwasi Seva Ashram case, this Court held that the inhabitants of the land had a right for their claims to be heard by the Forest Officer, who had the power to decide the claims. The judgment discusses the interpretation and applicability of the relief granted in the Banwasi Seva Ashram case to SC/ST/other backward communities and the broader principles of forest dwelling communities and their rights.

 

2.      BK Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka: In this case, the Supreme Court of India considered the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in a writ jurisdiction unless there is a manifest error of fact appraised by the lower court that has caused grave injustice. The judgment emphasized that re-appreciation of evidence can only be done in cases where the original order of the lower court was passed in excess of its jurisdiction or if the findings were patently perverse. The case is reported in 2008 (4) SCC 451.

3.      Krishnanand vs. Director of Consolidation: In this case, the Supreme Court of India dealt with a situation where the High Court had dismissed concurrent findings of the lower courts while exercising its writ jurisdiction. The court reiterated that re-appreciation of evidence can only be done in exceptional cases where the findings of the lower courts are patently perverse or if they have exceeded their jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of the High Court's powers in re-evaluating evidence. The case is reported in 2015 (1) SCC 553.