FAKIR TANTY Vs. SUBDIVISIONSL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the finding recorded by the Subdivisional Officer, Sundargarh, in a proceeding Under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act rejecting the case of the petitioner with regard to possession of the disputed land and accepting that of the original opposite party No, 2 that he had been in possession of the lands in dispute after purchasing a part thereof on September 16, 1951 for a consideration of Rs. 150/ - and the remaining part on April 14, 1952 for a consideration of Rs. 175/ -for which two unregistered deeds of sale had been executed and had perfected his title over the lands by prescription. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. M. R. Panda has challenged the finding as illegal and unfounded while the learned counsel for the opp. parties have submitted that there is no case for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.

(2.) IT has been a well -settled principle that in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction in writ applications, the High Court should not act as a Court of appeal or revision to correct mere errors of law or of facts as its jurisdiction is merely supervisory. Interference By this Court may be justified when the question of jurisdiction is involved or the principles of natural justice have been violated. This Court is not to enter upon a determination of the questions of facts demanding an elaborate examination of evidence with regard to conflicting rights and claims set up by the parties before the appropriate authorities In the instant case, there is no want of jurisdiction on the part of the authority whose order has been called in question. No case has been made out that principles of natural justice have been violated. The questions raised on behalf of the petitioner relate purely to appreciation of the materials on which the finding is based.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, there is no case for interference.