Every Erroneous Decision By Lower Court Not Amenable To Writ Of Certiorari, Only Patent Errors Can Be Corrected: J&K High Court
Underscoring the principle that every erroneous decision by a lower court cannot be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that this provision is meant to rectify only glaring errors apparent on the face of the record, not mistakes in factual assessment or legal interpretation.Referring to Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi...
Underscoring the principle that every erroneous decision by a lower court cannot be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that this provision is meant to rectify only glaring errors apparent on the face of the record, not mistakes in factual assessment or legal interpretation.
Referring to Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors a bench of Justice Puneet Gupta observed,
“.. an error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law”.
These observations came in a case between Mohammad Rafiq Rather and his sister Sara Banoo regarding a land dispute. Sara Banoo had filed a suit claiming ownership of ancestral property measuring 5 kanals and 14 marlas. Rafiq contested this claim, stating that a portion of the land belonged to him.
After considering the claims the lower courts had granted temporary relief to Sara Banoo, restricting Rafiq from interfering with the cultivation of the land.
Aggrieved of the same Rafiq represented by senior advocate Mr. Z. A. Qureshi and Ms. Monisa Maqsood, argued that the lower courts had erred in their decisions by relying on conflicting revenue reports without proper consideration. Rather claimed that the courts ignored evidence that did not favor Banoo and failed to establish the rightful possession accurately.
On the other hand, Sara Banoo, through her counsel Mr. Lone Altaf, contended that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were thorough and required no interference. Altaf argued that the courts had correctly assessed the facts and evidence, including previous legal proceedings initiated and withdrawn by Rather.
Upon analyzing the record the court noted that the lower courts had considered multiple conflicting revenue reports from Tehsildar Kangan and despite inconsistencies, they had evaluated other available evidence and legal precedents to arrive at their decisions.
Observing that these discrepancies did not amount to a 'patent error' justifying intervention under Article 227 the court noted that Rafiq had earlier filed a suit for possession of the same land, which he later withdrew. This, along with the conflicting revenue reports, indicated a factual dispute that needed to be settled through a full-fledged trial, not a writ petition, the bench underscored.
Emphasising that High Court's power of superintendence is not meant to be a substitute for the appeal process the court explained that it will only intervene in exceptional circumstances where there is a 'manifest miscarriage of justice'.
“This Court will not normally interfere even if there is some wrong committed on facts or law by the Courts below. Article 227 cannot be invoked only for the reason that the petitioner feels aggrieved of the order impugned in the petition. The compelling circumstances have to be made out by the aggrieved party against the order impugned in the petition requiring interference by the Court”,the bench remarked.
In absence of compelling circumstances necessitating interference, the High Court dismissed Mohammad Rafiq Rather's petition, thus upholding the orders of the lower courts.
Case Title: Mohammad Rafiq Rather Vs Sara Banoo
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 133
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment