- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In regard to land bearing khasra No. 565 measuring 7 bighas situated in village Gahlau Tehsil Roopbas Weir District Bharatpur, two suits were filed, one by the respondent No. 1 for declaration and permanent injunction and another by the appellant for declaration and deletion of the entries in the revenue record made in favour of respondent No. 1. The Assistant Collector Bayana vide common judgment and decree dated May 18, 1990 while dismissing the suit of appellant decreed the suit of respondent No. 1. The Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue dismissed the first and second appeals preferred by the appellant. Learned Single Judge also refused to unsettle the findings arrived at by the courts below. Now in this Special appeal, the appellant has prayed to set aside the aforesaid findings.
(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel that all the courts below have committed jurisdictional error in not properly appreciating the pleadings of the parties. According to learned counsel, issue of adverse possession was wrongly decided by the courts below.
(3.) A look at the impugned order of learned Single Bench goes to show that it examined the findings of courts below in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The scope of supervisory jurisdiction has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. : (2003) 3 SCC 524 thus: - - The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.;