JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22-11-95 (Annexure-4), by which the allotment in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Collector in its revisional jurisdiction. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Smt. Kamlesh Gupta, who is a resident of village Rawatbhata, made an application for allotment of land in village Jhalar Baori, about four kilometres away from Rawatbhata, for residential purposes and the said allotment was made in her favour by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 25-3-88 (Annex. 2) and she was issued a "Patta" of the aforesaid land for a sum of Rs. 1490/- on 11-5-88. Several revision petitions were filed before the Additional Collector, Chittorgarh, for cancelling the said 'Patta" contending that the land in dispute belonged to them. The same have been allowed vide judgment and order dated 22-11-95 (Annex. 4). Hence this petition. 3. Admittedly, petitioner is not a resident of the village where the "Patta" was granted to her. The Additional Collector, while cancelling the "Patta", recorded the following findings of facts:- "(i) The Patta was made in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions; (ii) The then Sarpanch had executed the Patta in violation of the provisions of Rules 257 to 268 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961; (iii) Application of the petitioner was not registered in the Register of Applicants; (iv) The required fee, along with the said application, was not deposited. (v) The objections, as required under Rule 260 of the said Rules, 1961, were not invited; (vi) As the objections had not been invited, the mandatory requirement of disposing of objections under Rule 261 of the said Rules, 1961, could not be there; (vii) The three days' notice for auctioning the plot, as required under Rule 262, was not complied with; (viii) The inspection report did not bear the signatures of any other Panch and it bore the signatures of the petitioner-applicant and the Sarpanch only; (ix) The file of inspection also did not bear the signatures of any other Panch; (x) Proceedings of allotment did not bear the signature of any Panch and it bore the signatures of the Sarpanch and the petitioner-applicant only; (xi) There is no description as how many persons had come to bid in the auction and what had been the amount offered by them; (xii) Certain entries had been made at two-three places giving certain amount, without explaining as what it had been; and (xiii) instead of complying with the statutory provisions, on"v formalities have been made. 4. In view of the aforesaid findings of facts, the Revisional Authority cancelled the Patta granted 'n favour of the petitioner. 5. This Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution as per the law laid down in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim, AIR 1984 SC 38 , wherein it has been held that even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution and the power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded. its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative is correct all species of hard- ship or wrong decision. Fur interference, there must be a case of Vagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where order of the Tribunal etc. has resulted in grave injustice. (Vide Constitution Bench judgments of the Apex Court in D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee, AIR 1953 SC 58 ; and Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division & Appeals, AIR 1958 SC 398 . For interference under Article 227, the finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and dehors the factual and legal position on record. For interference under Article 227, the finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and dehors the factual and legal position on record. (Vide Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895 ; Rukmanand Bairoliya v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 746 ; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1980 SC 1896 ; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576 ; Reliance industries Ltd. v. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel, (1997) 7 SCC 300 ; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Sub-Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 ; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat v. Vinayak N. Joshi, (1999) 1 SCC 47 . 6. It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (Vide Rena Drego v. Lalchand Soni, (1998) 3 SCC 341 ; Chandra Bhushan v. Beni Prasad, (1999) 1 SCC 70 ; Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate v. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171 ; and Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. v. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union, (1999) 2 SCC 143 . Unless the findings are patently erroneous and dehors the factual and legal position on record, exercising to power under Article 227 of the Constitution may not be justified and in that eventuality disturbing the findings of facts would amount to jurisdictional error. (Vide Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde, (1999) 4 SCC 1 . Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (Vide Union of India v. Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521 . Similarly, in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is no justification for the High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 7. Similarly, in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is no justification for the High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 7. Similarly, a Full Bench of this Court in Chiman Lal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1688 of 1983, vide judgment and order dated 18-2-2000, (Reported in 2000 (2) Raj LR 39 ) has considered the aspect of interference in allotment at a very belated stage and held that the revisional powers can be exercised at any time provided (i) the order has been obtained by fraud; (ii) order is obtained by misrepresentation or collusion with public authority by the private party; (iii) order is against public interest; (iv) the order is without jurisdiction; (v) order is in clear violation of the statutory rules or provision of the Act; and (vi) order is void/void ab initio being against public policy or otherwise. 8. The Court further observed as under:- "The Common Law doctrine of public policy can be enforced wherever an action affects/offends public interest or where harmful result of permitting the injury to the public at large is evident. In such type of cases, revisional power can be exercised by the Authority at any time either suo motu or as and when such orders are brought to their notice." 9. In Maharaja Chintamani Sarannath v. State of Haryana, (1999) 8 SCC 16 , the Hon'ble Supreme court has categorically held that even if the order is found to be bad/illegal/without jurisdiction, the Courts may not interfere if setting-aside the order amounts to "reviving an invalid order " 10. Thus, in view of the above, I find no force in the petition and it is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent No. 1, the District Collector, Chittorgarh, may hold an inquiry against respondent No. 3 and take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law for committing fraud upon the Statute.Petition dismissed. *******