JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition u,/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 21.5.2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 6.2.2002 (Annex. P/1) passed by the SDO, Suratgarh (respondent No. 2), by which the 5 application of the petitioner for allotment of land situated in Chak No. 3 FDM at stone No. 83/340 Kila No. 19 to 25 total measuring 8 bighas (hereinafter referred to as the and in question) on permanent basis from temporary cultivation was rejected, order dated 7.3.2002 (Annex. P/2) by which application of Khushal Ram (respondent No. 5) for allotment of the land in to question was allowed, order dated 31.5.2002 (Annex. P/3) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3) by which the learned Revenue Appellate Authority remanded the case back to the learned SDO (respondent No. 2), order dated 4.9.2002 (Annex. P/4), by which the learned SDO, Suratgarh (respondent No. 2) again affirmed the order dated 6.2.2002 15 (Annex. P/5) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3) by which appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed and order dated 11.2.2003 (Annex. P/6) passed by the Board of Revenue by which the learned Board of Revenue (respondent No. 4) dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : (i) That the land situated in Chak No 3 FDM at Stone No. 83/340 Killa No. 19 to 25 total measuring 8 bighas which is a command land was being cultivated by the petitioner since Vikram Samvat 2062 and he was still in possession of the land in question. (ii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner moved an application under the provisions of Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975) for allotment of land in question on permanent basis. (iii) Further case of the petitioner is that the learned SDO (respondent No. 2)through his order dated 6.2.2002 (Annex. (iii) Further case of the petitioner is that the learned SDO (respondent No. 2)through his order dated 6.2.2002 (Annex. P/1) rejected the application of the petitioner inter alia holding that the petitioner had failed to prove the fact that he was a temporary cultivation holder and not only this, even as per provisions of Section 14-A read with Rule 24 of the Rules of 1975, 1 since the possession of the petitioner on the land in question was not continuous and no other land of the petitioner was situated adjacent to the and in question, therefore. he was not entitled to allotment of land in question. (iv) Further case of the petitioner is that in the meantime, Khushal Ram (respondent No. 5) moved an application for allotment of land in question under the provisions of Rule 14-A of the Rules of 1975 and the said application of the respondent N. 5 (Khushal Ram) was allowed vide order dated 7.3.2002 (Annex. P12) by the learned SDO, Suratgarh (respondent No. 2), and the land in question was allotted to the respondent No. 5 (Khushal Ram) treating the land in question in the category of medium small patch as defined in Rule 2 (Xill-A) of the Rules of 1975. (v) Further case of the petitioner is that against the order dated 15 8.2.2002 (Annex. P/1) passed by the learned SDO (respondent No. 2) and order dated 7.3.2002 (Annex. P/2) passed by the learned SDO (respondent No. 2), the petitioner as well as one Shri Kishan Lal preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3) and the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3) through his judgment dated 31.5.2002, (Annex. P13) set aside the orders dated 6.2.2002 (Annex. P/1) and 7.3.2002 (Annex. P/2) passed by the learned SDO (respondent No. 2) and matter was remanded back to the learned SDO (respondent No. 2). (vi) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter the matter was again heard by the learned SDO (respondent No. 2) and through order dated 4.9.2002 (Annex. P14), the learned SDO (respondent No. 2) re- affirmed the earlier orders dated 6.2.2002 (Annex. P/1) and 7.3.2002 (Annex. P/2) and thus, the case of the petitioner for allotment of land in question was again rejected. (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that against the judgment dated 4.9.2002 (Annex. P/4). P14), the learned SDO (respondent No. 2) re- affirmed the earlier orders dated 6.2.2002 (Annex. P/1) and 7.3.2002 (Annex. P/2) and thus, the case of the petitioner for allotment of land in question was again rejected. (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that against the judgment dated 4.9.2002 (Annex. P/4). the petitioner preferred two appeals before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3) being appeal No. 207/2002 and 2082002 and the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3) through his judgment dated 23.1.2003 (Annex. P/5) dismissed both the appeals filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner was trespasser on the land in question and his land was not adjacent to the land in question and he did not produce any evidence to show that the respondent No. 5 (Khushal Ram) was having the land beyond ceiling limit and therefore. the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of land in question. (viii) Further case of the petitioner is that aggrieved from the judgment dated 23.1 2003 (Annex. P/5) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 5), the petitioner preferred two revision petitions (Annex. P/7) being Revision Petition No. 5/2003 and 6/2003 before the Board of Revenue and the same were registered as Revision Petition No. 612003 and the learned Board of Revenue (respondent No. 4) through its judgment dated 11.2.2003 (Annex. P/5) dismissed the revision petition at admission stage inter alia holding that the petitioner was not khatedar of adjacent land and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for allotment of land in question. Hence, this writ petition with the above-mentioned prayer, 2. In this writ petition. the main case of the learned counsel tor the petitioner is that in view of insertion of Rule 2(xiii-A) of the Rules of 1975, 10 bighas of irrigated land and 20 bighas of un-irrigated land has been defined as a medium patch land and therefore, under the amended Rules, the petitioner was 5 entitled to allotment of land in question. Hence, the impugned orders suffer from basic infirmity and illegality and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 3. Hence, the impugned orders suffer from basic infirmity and illegality and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 3. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents No. 5 and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 that respondent No. 5 (Khushal Ram) also filed an application for allotment of land in question measuring 8 bighas under the medium patch allotment as this land was situated adjacent to the and of respondent No. 5 (Khushal Ram) and his application was rightly allowed by the learned SDO (respondent No. 2) through order dated 7.3.2002 (Annex. P/2). It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 that the petitioner was not 15 having possession over the land in question and his application was dismissed by the respondent No. 2 (SDO) through order dated 6.2.200.2 (Annex. P/1) as the petitioner was not found in temporary cultivation of the land in question and since all the Courts below had recorded findings of facts against the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute on the point that through order dated 6.2.2002 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned SDO (respondent No. 2), the application of the petitioner for permanent allotment of land in question was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any documentary as well as oral evidence and further more even the petitioner was not entitled for permanent allotment u/R. 14-A read with Rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 as his possession was not found continuous. 6. There is also no dispute on the point that through order dated 7.3.2002 (Annex. P/2) passed by the learned SDO (respondent No. 2) the 30 land in question was allotted to the respondent No. 5 (Khushal Ram) as medium patch allotment. 7. There is also no dispute on the point that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3) through order dated 3.1.2003 (Annex. P/2) passed by the learned SDO (respondent No. 2) the 30 land in question was allotted to the respondent No. 5 (Khushal Ram) as medium patch allotment. 7. There is also no dispute on the point that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3) through order dated 3.1.2003 (Annex. P/5) dismissed the appeals of the petitioners inter alia holding that the allotment of land in question in favour of respondent No. 5 (Khushal Ram) was rightly made on the basis of medium patch allotment and since the petitioner was trespasser and he has no other land adjacent to the, land in question, therefore, he was not entitled to the allotment of land in question. 8. There is also no dispute on the point that learned Board of Revenue through judgment dated 11.2.2003 (Annex. 6) dismissed the revisions petitions filed by the petitioner inter alia holding that the land in question falls within the definition of medium patch land that could be allotted under the provisions of Rule 4(a) of the Rules of 1975 and since the petitioner was not Khatedar of adjacent land, therefore. he was not entitled to allotment of land as in question as per provisions of Rule 14-A of the Rules of 1975. 9. In this case, the case of the petitioner is that as per provisions of Rule 14-A of the Rules of 1975, he is entitled to allotment of land in question. In my considered opinion, this aspect was considered by three Courts below and not only this, the learned Revenue Board (respondent No. 4) in its judgment dated 11.2.2003 (Annex. P/6) specifically dealt with this aspect and therefore, there is concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner on this point and hence when all the three Courts below have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of land in question as ne was 1 trespasser and no other land of the petitioner was situated adjacent to the land in question and hence. the petitioner was not found entitled for allotment of land in question.SCOPE OF ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 10. The High Court's power of revision u/Art, 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in case of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law ana would be exercised most sparingly in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The High Court's power of revision u/Art, 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in case of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law ana would be exercised most sparingly in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power. 11. This power would not be exercised to correct an error of fact or of law not being an, error of law apparent on the face of record, of an "irregularity or illegality of procedure", unless such error affects the jurisdiction or involves as breach of the principles of natural justice; or to reappraise the evidence. 12. This power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions and in the case where two views are possible on the facts and trial Court has taken one of them, the High Court cannot, u/Art. 227, interfere merely because the other view appears to it to be more attractive. 13. In exercise of its power of superintendence, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as if it were sitting in appeal. It has the power to go into questions of fact if justice so requires, but it would not do so unless the findings of the inferior Tribunal Court are perverse, not based on any material what soever; or it is vitiated by a misdirection in 25 Jaw; or it is against the preponderance of evidence and has resulted in manifest injustice. 14. Nor will the High Court in exercise of this power, substitute its own judgment for that of the inferior Court, whether on a question of fact or of law or interfere with the inter vires exercise of a discretionary power, unless it is 'arbitrary or capricious' or perverse or unless there was no evidence at all on which the inferior Court could have come to the conclusion it did or there was error of finding on a 'jurisdictional fact'. 15. In short as regards findings of fact of the inferior Court, the jurisdiction u/Art. 227 is limited to only examining whether the subordinate Court kept itself within the bounds of its authority in reaching the findings of fact. 15. In short as regards findings of fact of the inferior Court, the jurisdiction u/Art. 227 is limited to only examining whether the subordinate Court kept itself within the bounds of its authority in reaching the findings of fact. Consequently, the High Court cannot quash the judgment of the subordinate Court merely on the ground that its findings of fact were erroneous, but could do so only if the subordinate Court came to its conclusions without any evidence or upon a misreading of the evidence, or if its conclusions were perverse. 16. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior Court or Tribunal, unless its finding or order is clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. 17. From perusing the orders dated 6.2.2002 (Annex. R/1), 7.3.2002 (Annex. P/2) and 4.9.2002 (Annex. P/4) passed by the learned SDO (respondent No. 2), order dated 23.1.2003 (Annex. P/5) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (responded No. 3) and order dated 11.2.2003 (Annex. P/6) passed by the Board of Revenue (respondent No. 3), so it does not reveal that there is patent irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings recorded by the Courts below perverse and the findings of facts records by three Courts below are based on correct appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference by this Court. 18. For the reasons mentioned above. the orders dated 6.2.2002 (Annex. P/1) 7.3.2002 (Annex./P/2) and 4.9.2002 (Annex. P/4) passed by the learned SDO (respondent No. 2), order dated 23.1.2003 (Annex P/5) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority respondent No. 3) and order dated 11 2.2003 (Annex P16) passed by this Court and the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed.Cost made easy.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******