Badri Prasad Tiwari vs State Of M.P

S.C. Sharma, J

Parties through their counsel.

The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition under article 227 of the Constitution of Indiabeing aggrieved by the order dated 19-05-2020 passed by the Registrar Public Trust, Ratlam and the subsequent order dated 30-05-2020 passed by the Tehsildar, the respondent No.3.

The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is a resident of Ratlam District and the respondent No.2 is a registered trust registered under the Public Trust Act, 1951. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has purchased a land bearing Survey No. 95 Rajgarh District Ratlam from the erstwhile President of the Trust through the registered Sale Deed. On 14-08-2001 permission was granted by the Registrar of the Public Trust to the erstwhile President of the Trust to sell 1.8 hectares of trust propertyand a sale deed was executed on 30-08-2001. The petitioner's contention is that the Registrar on an application preferred by the Trust has passed an order on 19-05-2020 and has arrived at a conclusion that certain persons have encroached upon the trust property and the Tehsildar, Ratlam has been directed to take action in accordance with law, keeping in view Section 250 of the M.P Land Revenue Code. The order is on record as Annexure-P-1 and the same reveals that the nameof the petitioner does not find place in the order passed by the Tehsildar. The most shocking aspect of the case is that the persons against whom the order has been passed who are respondents before the Registrar Public Trust have already preferred Civil suits and the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before this court under article 227 of the Constitution of India stating that he has purchased 1.8 hectares of the land through registered sale deed and in respect of the aforesaid First Appeal is pending i.e. FA No. 10/2017 before this court and the matter is sub judice before this court.

On the other hand Mr Vinay Gandhi has argued before this court that the petitioner is claiming title in respect of only 1.8 hectares of land which he has purchased through the registered sale deed and the sale deed is on record Annexure-P-3 dated 22-09-2001. Mr Gandhi has stated that the total area of the land over which the trust is having title is 8.5 hectare and the order passed by the Registrar does not relates to the area which is the subject matter of the sale deed. He has stated that the persons have illegally grab the trust land and, therefore, an order has been passed by the Registrar Public Trust against which civil suits have been filed and the petitioner wants the proceedings to remain stayed and, therefore, he has filed the present writ petition.

In light of the categoric statement made by Mr Gandhi that no action is being initiated in respect of 1.8 hectares of the land which has been purchased by the petitioner through sale deed dated 30-08-2001 as the First Appeal is pending before this court, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Registrar dated 19-05-2001 and the subsequent order passed by the Tehsildar dated 30-05-2001. The orders passed by the Registrar Public Trust are in consonance with the statutory provisions governing the field and no case is made out so far the petitioner is concerned as keeping in view the categoric statement made by Mr Gandhi that the Trust is not at all at present taking any action against the petitioner as the First Appeal is already pending and the Trust shall certainly be free to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, after the First Appeal which is pending before High Court is decided.

In the considered opinion of this court, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not committed any illegality/irregularity warranting any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The apex court in the case of Shalini_Shyam Shetty Vs.Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 - 2 in paragraph 49 held as under:

"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exerciseof its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it.

In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.

(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, `within the bounds of their authority'.

(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.

(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.

(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.

(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.

(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.

(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.

(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.

(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest - 3 whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance.

Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.

(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality."

In light of the aforesaid judgment as no patent illegality has been committed by the Registrar and the order passed by the Registrar court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 19-05-2020 passed by the Registrar Public Trust, Ratlam and the subsequent order dated 30-05-2020.

The petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Certified copy as per rules.