High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated 01 October 2026, held that the scope of judicial superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is strictly limited to keeping subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority, explicitly barring the High Court from reappreciating evidence or acting as a court of first appeal.

A bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt observed that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because an alternative view is possible, emphasizing that such interference is reserved for cases of "serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice."

The dispute concerned eviction proceedings initiated by the Western Railway under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ("PPE Act") against the petitioners regarding land in Survey Nos. 1937 and 1938 in Ujjain. The petitioners challenged an order of the Principal District Judge, Ujjain, which had refused to grant an interim stay on their eviction, arguing that the title and character of the land were subject to pending litigation before the Waqf Tribunal. The petitioners further alleged that the eviction order was passed in violation of existing status-quo orders regarding adjacent lands.

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court could interfere under Article 227 with a discretionary order passed by a District Judge in an appeal under Section 9 of the PPE Act. The court was also tasked with determining whether the eviction order was passed in defiance of a pending Waqf Tribunal proceeding and whether the petitioner had demonstrated a "patent perversity" sufficient to warrant the exercise of extraordinary supervisory powers.

Court Explains Limitation of Article 227

The High Court clarified that the power of superintendence is not a tool to correct every error of fact or law. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu, the bench observed that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is discretionary and not a matter of right. It underscored that when a lower court or tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction legally and reasonably, the High Court must exercise restraint.

No Interference In Reasonable View

The court noted that if a subordinate court's view is plausible and supported by material evidence, the High Court cannot supplant that view with its own merely because an alternative interpretation is possible. The court stated that the "fountain of justice" must remain pure, and excessive interference would only divest the extraordinary jurisdiction of its vitality.

"The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals."

Rejection of Petitioner's Claims

Regarding the specific facts, the court observed that the petitioners had engaged in "clever drafting" by suppressing prior adjudications. It noted that previous rulings by the Waqf Tribunal and the High Court had already affirmed the Union of India's title to the disputed survey numbers, barring a small, specifically notified portion of land. The court found that the petitioners’ argument regarding an overlap of survey numbers was speculative and unsupported by the available revenue records, which remained consistent over decades.

Application of Res Judicata

The court further held that the petitioners were effectively re-agitating issues already settled by competent authorities and courts in earlier rounds of litigation. By attempting to link the current eviction proceedings to unrelated survey numbers already adjudicated in previous proceedings, the petitioners sought to bypass established judicial findings. The court affirmed that the subordinate authorities had not acted without jurisdiction and that the eviction proceedings were a lawful exercise of authority under the PPE Act.

The High Court dismissed the petition, finding it meritless and devoid of any legal basis for interference. The ruling reaffirms that Article 227 is a correctional jurisdiction meant to be exercised sparingly to prevent grave injustice, and not as an appellate forum to re-examine findings of fact or support the stalling of legal proceedings through speculative claims.

Date of Decision: 01 October 2026