High Court cannot substitute its view under Article 227 when the subordinate court’s interpretation is plausible.

The Appellants (N.I.C.E.) and Respondents (Decree Holders) entered into a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) on 10.08.2007 regarding land in Survey No. 122, Kengeri Village, used for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project.

Under Clause (xiii) of the MOS, if N.I.C.E. failed to provide exchange land, they were to pay the "guideline value" fixed by the Government as of the date of the settlement for the 3 acres 6 guntas of land utilized.

The Executing Court determined the guideline value at ₹1,000 per sq. ft. based on the 17.04.2007 Notification, treating the land as converted industrial land within municipal limits abutting a State Highway.

On a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court impleaded the State and reduced the valuation to ₹500 per sq. ft. by applying a 50% reduction for industrial land under "Special Instruction No. 6".

1. Whether the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in modifying the Executing Court's valuation?

2. Whether the Executing Court’s interpretation of the 17.04.2007 Guideline Notification was plausible or perverse?

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is intended to keep subordinate courts within their bounds and not to act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate evidence or correct non-patent legal flaws.

The High Court cannot substitute its own judgment unless the lower court’s finding is perverse or lacks any evidence, as established in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel [(2022) 4 SCC 181].

Interpretation of the 17.04.2007 Notification involves a hierarchy between base rates for urban municipal sites and residual Special Instructions.

The High Court erroneously impleaded the State in a private dispute to "clarify" a statutory notification that was already clear on its face.

The Executing Court’s valuation of ₹1,000 per sq. ft. was a "plausible and reasonable view" based on the land being within municipal limits (₹800 base rate) and abutting a State Highway (+25% increase).

Special Instruction No. 6 (which provides for a 50% reduction for industrial areas) is a residual provision that only triggers when a specific rate is not notified; here, the rate for Survey No. 122 was specifically notified in Column 6.

By substituting a possible alternative interpretation for the Executing Court’s plausible one, the High Court violated the restricted mandate of Article 227.

The Supreme Court allowed the Decree Holders' appeal, dismissed N.I.C.E.’s appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Executing Court's order fixing the value at ₹1,000 per sq. ft., totaling ₹13,72,14,000.

N.I.C.E. was directed to pay the balance amount of ₹8,79,95,250 with 6% interest per annum.