Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 may correct tribunal findings made without considering material documents.

Revisional power under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is limited to cases where the appellate authority, Land Board, or Taluk Land Board has erroneously decided, or failed to decide, a question of law. Mere non-consideration of relevant documents, even those bearing on tenancy, does not by itself constitute such an error. However, where factual findings are reached without considering material documents that could have altered the result, the High Court may still exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 alongside its revisional power. On that basis, the High Court was justified in setting aside the tribunal orders, and no interference was warranted in appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere with the orders of the tribunals under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act on the ground that material documents and judicial proceedings were not considered, and whether such interference was sustainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Act is confined to cases where the appellate authority, the Land Board, or the Taluk Land Board has erroneously decided, or failed to decide, a question of law. Mere non-consideration of relevant documents, even those having a bearing on tenancy, does not by itself amount to an erroneous decision or failure to decide a question of law. However, where findings of fact are reached without considering material documents whose consideration could have led to a different result, the High Court's supervisory power under Article 227 remains available in addition to its statutory revisional power.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in setting aside the tribunal orders in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, and no interference was warranted in appeal.

---