1. In this petition (filed in representative capacity on behalf of residents of village Kunzer), order dated: 17.09.1977 of Tehsildar Tangmarg, respondent No.4 and confirmatory revisional order dated: 01.12.1999 of Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K, respondent No.2, (Annexures E and C) are under challenge. These orders provide that the water received in Grat Bari kul from various springs including Astan Nag Springs, flows down the kul and ir­rigates the lands of Lalpora and other villagers and the obstructions caused/laid by villagers of Kunzer to the flow of these waters in Grat Bari Kul for irrigating lands of various villagers other than of villagers of Kunzer, be removed by clos­ing flow of this water interalia through outlet across Srinagar Gulmarg road (hereafter for short road) from south to north of the road, as shown in Annexure-F too. 2. The villagers of Kunzer on one hand and the villagers of Lalpora (for themselves and resi­dents of some other villages) on the other hand are litigating over their rights to irrigate their respective village lands from Astan Nag Springs, forming (as per petitioner part of the water body of Grat Bari kul. The villagers of Lalpora in 1972, made a complaint before As­sistant Commissioner Baramulla, alleging that the villagers of Kunzer have no right to use waters of Grat Bari Kul to irrigate their lands, yet they have caused obstruction to flow of water in the said Kul and this petitioned ob­struction to flow of water to village lands be removed. The Assistant Commissioner Baramulla, passed the orders and in terms of his order dated: 18.09.1972 directed removal of obstruction. However, this order was set aside and cause remanded back for fresh orders by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated; 02.06.1976, after the Divisional Commission­er Kashmir made a reference thereto under his order dated: 15.01.1976. The Tehsildar Tangmarg after above remand order examined the matter afresh, he perused Rivaj Aabpashi, Misli Haqiyat, record of rights and other rev-enue records thereto, he considered the matter in entirety and found that the real dispute be­tween the parties was whether the water emanating from Astan nag Springs is flowing independently as a separate Kul as source of water to village Kunzer lands through the nali across the Srinagar Gulmarg raod from north­ern side or forms part of water-body of Grat Bari Kul that irrigates lands of Lalpora and other villages other than Kunzer. The Tehsildar reached the conclusion that the water oozing from Astan nag Springs is the prime and only source of irrigation of Gokhama village lands, on southern side of Srinagar Gulmarg road. The source of water, on the very southern side, of various villages including those of Lalpora etc. is Grat Bari Kul, which receives water from vari­ous springs on the southern side of the road it­self. After irrigating and supplying water to village Gokhama, the waters of Astan Nags flows into Grat Bari Kul and irrigates lands of Palpora and many other villages other than Kunzer. The land(s) of village Kunzer is lo­cated apart, on the northern side of the droad. The villagers of village Kunzer constructed a nali on the Gulmarag Srinagar road in 1972 which gave rise to the dispute. They blocked the water to flow in Grat Bari Kul. By divert­ing the water the lands of the other said villages have been left dry. The Tehsildar has also found that till 1972, when a nali was made across the road, the water flowing from Astan nags formed part of main water body of Grat Bari Kul, irri­gating only land(s) of Palpora and other named villages to the exclusion of Kunzer village which has number of springs and other water sources falling on the Northers side of the main road to irrigate lands of Kunzer village. The sourse of water to irrigate the lands of Kunzer on one hand and other villages including those of Gokhama, and Lalpora on the other hand are independent of each other. The removal of obstruction to flow of water into Gratbari Kul for irrigating the land of the above said villages is required to be closed. The Tehsildar has based this or­der besides records on spot inspection and physical features noted by the revenue authorities on spot. Financial Commissioner in revision filed by villagers of Kunzer has found on scrutiny of entries in Misli Haqiyat, "Rivaj Aabpashi, record of rights usage regarding utili­sation of the source of water in question before 1956 in terms of the provisions of Common Land (Regulation) Act, Physical features of landscape, site plans and other documents avail­able, that Astan Nag has not been the source of irrigation of lands of Kunzer, instead as a mat­ter of fact Astan Nags have been the source of irrigation of Gokhama village lands. From Gokhama onwards this water flows and is re­ceived in Gratbari Kul and irrigates lands of said villages other than Kunzer. On viewing the matter in totality as above, and for the rea­sons recorded thereto, the Financial Commis­sioner finding herself in agreement with con­clusions of Tehsildar, dismissed the revision as without any merit. The review filed against this order met same fate. 3. These orders of Tehsildar and Financial Commissioner are challenged in this petition on the ground that the orders are not based on facts, it is alleged that the water flowing from Astan Nags flows directly to and is used in Kunzer village. The revenue officers have not decided as such the claim of Kunzer villagers to water from Astan Nag Springs. Instead they have embarked on an enquiry to determine the rights of villagers of palpora to get water from Gratbari Kul and their claim that the Astan nag water forms part of water body of Gratbari Kul. The entries in Rivaj Aabpashi have not been kept in view. The revenue authority has not dealt with the question within the confines of his powers. The limited question to be determined was to find the usage of water and the obstruction if any, to flow of this water and in case so found, further question of removal of obstruction thereto. The Tehsildar exceeded his jurisdic­tion. The Financial Commissioner also re­jected the review of revisiona 1 order without determining the real controversy. 4. Respondent No.5, villagers of lalpora have filed reply. The official respondents on whose behalf Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, AAG and Mr. G. Ali, then Govt. Advocate appeared, have adopted this reply of respondent No. 5. 5. Respondents allege that no right of pe­titioner is violated. Revenue authorities have found respondent No.5 villagers of Lalpora entitled to use of waters of Gratbari Kul of which interalia water body is formed of waters re­ceived from Asian Nag Springs and have initi­ated and taken steps to remove obstruction to flow of water to lands irrigated by Gratbari Kul. The rights/entitlement of parties to use and uti­lise the water in question is subject of a civil suit interse parties pending on the file of Dis­trict Judge Baramulla. It is further pleaded that in view of pendency of earlier writ petition on the very subject at Jammu (as mentioned in ground (f) of writ petition) this writ petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that in view of pendency of earlier writ petition on the very subject at Jammu (as mentioned in ground (f) of writ petition) this writ petition is not maintainable. Revenue authorities have jurisdiction to decide the matter in question. 6. In earlier writ petition 365/99, mandamus was prayed for Divisional Commis­sioner and Financial Commissioner for decid­ing the revision petition for setting at rest com­peting claims as to user of the water in question, without questioning the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities to decide the matter. The jurisdiction to decide by respondents was at no point of time questioned either before the au­thorities or in the earlier writ petition. Petitioner although submitted to the jurisdiction of Rev­enue authorities. 7. The counsel for the parties have ad­vanced arguments in support of their respec­tive pleaded contentions referred hereinabove. Heard. Examined. Considered. 8. In the context of contours of jurisdic­tion of the High Court in writ proceedings un­der Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir State, particularly in the context of prayed writ of certiorari against the impugned orders annexure C & E, it is necessary to notice the general principles of law. 9. In Swarn Singh and anr. vs. State of Pun­jab and others, AIR 1976 SC; 236, the court observed:- "......It is well settled that certiorari juris­diction can be exercised only for correct­ing error of jurisdiction committed by infe­rior courts or tribunals. A writ of Certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of super­visory jurisdiction, which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The court exercis­ing special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate court. As was pointed out by this court in Syed Yakoobs case (AIR 1964 SC 477) (Supra)" this limitation necessarily means that find­ings of fact reached by the inferior court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record of can be corrected by a writ but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be". An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record of can be corrected by a writ but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be". In Syed Yakub vs. Radhakrishan (AIR 1964 SC 479), a five member bench of the Apex court observed:- ".......There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the court exer­cising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot foe reopened or questioned in writ proceedings." 10. Under the impugned order, both Tehsildar Tangmarg as also the Financial Com­missioner in revision have in main pronounced on the exercise of rights of user in respect of source of water supply in question among the inhabitants of the villages. The Revenue authority(ies) have come to the conclusion that among others the villagers of Lalpora have right of user of waters of Gratbari Kul, of which the waters oozing from Asian nag Springs form part of the water body. The source of water of Asian nag Springs irrigate lands of Gokhama village. Thereafter instead of being allowed to flow through its natural course hi Gralbari Kul, the water is diverted and taken across Srinagar Gulmarag road after construction of water chan­nel (in 1972) for irrigating lands of petitioner (villagers of Kunzer). Thereby the Revenue authorities have determined all this as obstruc­tion to user of water by villagers of palpora. Revenue authorities on being seized of the mat­ter have made necessary enquiry and directed free exercise of right of user of the water by Palpora villagers and removal of obstruction designed to block flow of water in Gratbari Kul, raised by villagers of Kunzer at village Gokhama. Revenue authorities on being seized of the mat­ter have made necessary enquiry and directed free exercise of right of user of the water by Palpora villagers and removal of obstruction designed to block flow of water in Gratbari Kul, raised by villagers of Kunzer at village Gokhama. The relevant provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Common Land (Regulation) Act 1956, which need to be taken note of, reads as under :- "section 3(1): Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and notwithstand­ing any agreement custom or usage or any decree or order of any court or other au­thority, every inhabitant of a village shall exercise the right of user in respect of any road, street, lane, path, channel, drain, well, tank or any source of water-supply in a vil­lage including the village of which he is not an inhabitant; Provided that such right was exercised by such inhabitant or any of his predecessors-in-title for one year continuously at any time prior to the commencement of the J&K Common Lands (Regulation) ordinance, 1956 (VII of 1956). (II)The right of user permitted by Sub-sec­tion (1) shall not be deemed to include or otherwise confer, create or assign any right of encroachment, whether by means of con­struction, including fencing, walling or putting any barrier or by breaking up of land, diversion or otherwise. (II)The right of user permitted by Sub-sec­tion (1) shall not be deemed to include or otherwise confer, create or assign any right of encroachment, whether by means of con­struction, including fencing, walling or putting any barrier or by breaking up of land, diversion or otherwise. Section,4: (1)Where any inhabitant of a vil­lage is denied, or obstructed in the lawful exercise of his right of user as provided in Section 3, or where any person has taken possession of or brought under cultivation or otherwise encroached upon any road, street, land, path, channel, drain, well, tank or any source of water supply, a revenue Officer may, on his own motion or on the application of any person interested and after such enquiry as may be deemed nec­essary; (a) direct the free exercise of the right of user and the removal of the obstruction, where the exercise of such right is found to have been denied or obstructed; (b) eject the person who has taken posses­sion of or brought under cultivation or oth­erwise encroached upon such road, street, lane, path, channel, drain, well, tank or any source of water supply; (c) inflict a fine not exceeding Rs.200 on such person or person as are found to have denied or obstructed the exercise of the right of user In respect of or to have taken possession of or brought under cultivation or otherwise encroached upon such road, street, lane, path, channel, drain, well, tank or any source of water supply." 11. Exercise of right of user and removal of obstruction to such usage of water statutorily implies that the revenue officer either so moto or on the application of any person interested has to hold necessary enquiry before directing free exercise of right of user and removal of such obstruction to flow of water from any source of water supply. It in terms implies de­termination of questions and claims advanced to such usage by (contesting) parties, causing of obstruction and removal thereof. Examina­tion and consideration of entries in revenue records like Rivaj Aabpashi, settlement records and record of rights, as also the report submit­ted by filed agency of the revenue department is imperative. Spot inspection, background facts, top graphical and other geographical fac­tors, etc. have to be there to reach some conclu­sion. Consideration of this material/evidence cannot be taken exception. Examina­tion and consideration of entries in revenue records like Rivaj Aabpashi, settlement records and record of rights, as also the report submit­ted by filed agency of the revenue department is imperative. Spot inspection, background facts, top graphical and other geographical fac­tors, etc. have to be there to reach some conclu­sion. Consideration of this material/evidence cannot be taken exception. The jurisdiction to determine the matter and pass warranted or­ders thereto lies with competent authority un­der Common Lands (Regulation) Act of 1956 and falls within exclusive power of the Au­thority. The contension that the tehsildar has not gone into this aspect of the matter while holding enquiry, is not born by record, it can­not be said as suggested that the villagers of Kunzer had no opportunity to adducing evi­dence/material before revenue officer during enquiry. The Tehsildars order is based on material. He has considered the revenue record including Misli Haqiyat and Rivaj Aabpashi. Besides, he has also made spot inspection. He had within his knowledge the long running despute over the sharing of spring water interse the parties. All this shows that his order of re­storing waters of Astan Nags to Grat Baril Kul on determination of the right of Palpora and other village people is based on record. The present writ petitioners filed revision and the Financial Commissioner in a detailed order on consideration of all aspects of the matter con­firmed the order of the Tehsildar and dismissed the revision as not merited. The order of the Financial Commissioner is again based on records, history of the case, background facts, revenue field agency feed backs, spot inspec­tion, topographical nature and geographical position of the spot. The revenue court has taken all aspects of the matter into considera­tion. The review against the dismissal order of the revision has also been dismissed after the review petition too was found without any merit, the findings of fact reached by the Tehsildar and confirmed on revision by Financial Commis­sioner on appreciation of evidence and mate­rial cannot be re-opened or questioned in the writ proceedings. No error of jurisdiction is pointed out. The matter cannot be examined in the writ jurisdiction from stand-point of ap­pellate jurisdiction. The findings of fact reached by the Revenue Officer and the Financial Com­missioner cannot be re-opened in these proceed­ings, notwithstanding, however grave error of fact may be, as is conceded in reply. No error of jurisdiction is pointed out. The matter cannot be examined in the writ jurisdiction from stand-point of ap­pellate jurisdiction. The findings of fact reached by the Revenue Officer and the Financial Com­missioner cannot be re-opened in these proceed­ings, notwithstanding, however grave error of fact may be, as is conceded in reply. Respond­ents have taken the plea that as a civil suit con­cerning the very subject matter, as projected in this writ petition, is pending on the file of Dis­trict Judge, Baramulla, the writ petitioner could not have simultaneously launched the writ pro­ceedings, it is conceded that the suit interse the parties on the subject is pending between the parties. The competing claims and contested rights to take waters emanating from Astan nag Springs after irrigating Gokhama village lands, in the face of disputed fact, can be taken care of in permissible legal proceedings involving en­quiry and determination of issues on evidence and documents. The civil court, being seized of the mater, will go into these aspects of the matter and rights of the parties to irrigate their lands by source of water over which a dispute is raised in these writ proceedings. 12. Earlier to this petition, a similar writ pe­tition was filed in Jammu wing of this court, while the writ petition was directed to be listed in Srinagar on 07.02.2000, this petition was not listed as directed since the file was not received by that date at Srinagar,. Instead, some other unrelated petition was listed. The petitioners instead of waiting for the file to come and to get it listed at Srinagar, rushed to file instant writ petition on 09.03.2000, on the plea of, the matter being emergent in nature with the rider that this file (writ petition) contains additional grounds and more documents. What are the additional grounds and what more documents are enclosed, is no where specified or explained in the memorandum of petition. What are the additional grounds and what more documents are enclosed, is no where specified or explained in the memorandum of petition. The writ petitioner in the petition itself on last page under para (f) states that the earlier writ petition which he filed at Jammu "may be treated as withdrawn, because same has not been considered as yet by the Honble Court" whether in the circum­stances this writ petition could lie without for­mally withdrawing earlier writ petition, the counsel for the respondents submits that this writ petition is not maintainable in as much as, during pendency of one writ petition filing of another petition on the same subject is barred. He further solicites that because the writ peti­tion has been directed to be listed at Srinagar , record was not received at Srinagar on particu­lar date, vaguely stating that some additional grounds have been taken and some more docu­ments enclosed, is not something as withdrawal of the writ petition. Of course, the earlier writ petition has not been formally withdrawn. Nei­ther any motion has been moved thereto nor any request is made in the earlier writ petition for withdrawal of writ petition, therefore, the court had no occasion to consider the question of withdrawal of earlier pending writ petition. In result, tor afore-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed at this pre-admission stage.