Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the private- respondents.
(2.) This petition has been filed assailing correctness of the judgment and order dated 3.12.1982 passed by the Board of Revenue/respondent No. 1, whereby it allowed the second appeal filed by the respondents. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue exercising power under second appeal has over stepped its jurisdiction by setting aside the finding of fact recorded by the Court below and substituting it by its own finding. Further argument is that the compromise dated 8.3.1964 has been misread by the Board of Revenue, while allowing the appeal.
(3.) On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the judgment of the Board of Revenue is correct and once it has considered evidence on record and has recorded its own finding based upon material on record, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction.;