Surajbai and Others vs Smt. Sitabai

01- The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by order dated 07/08/2020 passed by Collector, Ratlam in Revenue Case No.0048/Revision/2019-2020.

02- The facts of the case reveal that an order was passed in the year 2006 in respect of partition by the Tehsildar and one Sitabai in respect of partition, which took place vide order dated 10/07/2006, preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

03- Sitabai in her application has categorically stated that her family members have presented some other lady in her place, thumb impression of some other lady was affixed in the order sheet by committing forgery, cheating and impersonation. The order of partition was obtained by fraud by her family members and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

04- The Sub Divisional Officer, as there was a categoric statement by the appellant that she was never present, somebody has impersonated her, resulting in order dated 10/07/2006, has passed an order condoning the delay on 23/09/2019 and the appeal is still pending before the Sub Divisional Officer. Against the order of Sub Divisional Officer a revision was preferred before the Collector, Ratlam and the Collector, Ratlam by an order dated 07/08/2020 has dismissed the revision, meaning thereby, he has affirmed the order condoning the delay in respect of appeal preferred by Smt. Sitabai. The appeal has to be decided on merits. whether some other person has appeared before the Tehsildar in partition proceedings has to be looked into by the Sub Divisional Officer.

05- This Court really fails to understand that in case Sitabai has appeared before the Tehsildar, the petitioner should not feel shy in getting the appeal decided on merits. As Sitabai has alleged fraud in the matter and fraud vitiates everything, the Sub Divisional Officer was justified in condoning the delay and allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Collector was also justified in dismissing the revision preferred by the present petitioner.

06- The apex court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 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 exercise of 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 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 Sub Divisional Officer / Collector and the order passed by the Court's below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Collector in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. This Court has not observed anything on merits and the Sub Divisional Officer shall be free to decide the appeal in accordance with law on merits.

No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules.