https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187839 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings of consolidation authorities on co-tenancy, tenancy rights, and settlement entries. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by interfering with reasoned findings on the alleged 1907 settlement and later khata records, including by misreading the basis of the authorities' decision. The consolidation authorities' conclusions on the effect of subsequent settlement entries and the absence of support for the disputed claim were upheld, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Nov 2016 10:59:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187839 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings of consolidation authorities on co-tenancy, tenancy rights, and settlement entries. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by interfering with reasoned findings on the alleged 1907 settlement and later khata records, including by misreading the basis of the authorities' decision. The consolidation authorities' conclusions on the effect of subsequent settlement entries and the absence of support for the disputed claim were upheld, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187839