Ajay Singh Vs. Khacheru and Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos.________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 34407-34408 of 2013]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India, in Ajay Singh vs. Khacheru & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. _______ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 34407-34408 of 2013], delivered its judgment on January 2, 2025, addressing a land dispute involving the classification and ownership of a parcel of land recorded as a Johad (pond) in revenue records in Uttar Pradesh.
Facts and Background
The dispute concerned Khasra No. 103, recorded as a Johad (pond) in 1970. Ajay Singh, the appellant, claimed the land was a community water reservoir and excluded from the consolidation scheme under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The respondent, Khacheru, asserted ownership based on a patta (land grant) allegedly issued in 1981-82, claiming the land was “Oosar” (waste land), not a pond.
Revenue authorities, including the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner, after examining the evidence, concluded that the patta was fictitious and upheld the classification of the land as a Johad. Ajay Singh had also obtained a civil injunction preventing interference with the land’s use as a pond.
However, the High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, reversed these findings, ruling in favor of the respondent and granting ownership rights based on revenue entries.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined:
Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and overturning concurrent findings of multiple revenue authorities.
The scope and limits of High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly concerning factual findings.
The validity of the patta relied upon by the respondent and the proper classification of the land.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the revenue authorities, who had thoroughly examined the matter. The Court emphasized that under Article 226, High Courts cannot act as appellate courts to reassess facts unless there is perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error.
Citing precedents, the Court reiterated that concurrent findings by competent authorities must be respected unless shown to be perverse or illegal. The Court found no such grounds here.
The Supreme Court also criticized the High Court for setting aside the permanent injunction granted by the Collector in a “cursory and callous manner,” noting that such substantive orders require careful judicial consideration.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed Ajay Singh’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the findings of the revenue authorities. It upheld the classification of the disputed land as a Johad (pond) and invalidated the patta claimed by the respondent.
This judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings of subordinate authorities without valid legal grounds. It also affirms the importance of respecting revenue records and protecting community resources like ponds from improper alienation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments