JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The common order dated 26th March, 1991 (Annexure-5) passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case Nos. 1315, 1316, 1317 and 1318 of 1986 is assailed in this Writ application invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioner Rabindranath Dixit claiming to be the Presi¬dent of the Block Congress Committee (1), Kakatpur. 2. In course of hearing an application in the shape of a Misc.Case was filed by one Manguli Jena through his advocate for amendment of the cause-title of the Writ application inter alia stating that in the meanwhile petitioner Rabindranath Dixit who had filed the Writ application having been removed from the Presidentship of the Block Congress Committee (I), Kakatpur, and he (Manguli Jena) being in charge of the President is looking after the case, and the name of Rabindranath Dixit and/or his legal heirs substituted in his place in this Writ application be deleted and his (Manguli Jena) name be substituted. But then it appears that although this petition was filed by said Manguli Jena through an advocate, no Vakalatnama to that effect has been filed and, as such, the Misc. Case is not entertained and is dismissed. 3. The dispute before the consolidation authorities was relating to land appertaining to Sabik Plot No.366, Sabik Khata No.280 having an area of Ac.O.48 decimals corresponding to Hal Plot No. 1885, having an area of Ac.O.35 decimals situated in Mouza-Kakatpur in the district of Puri. In the Land Register prepared by the concerned consolidation authority after the Mouza in question came within the fold of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, the land in question stood recorded in the name of the Puri Zilla Congress Committee. Being aggrieved by the said recording, two objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer concerned, one by Sri Surendranath Nayak, present opposite party No.2, inter alia claiming to record the said land in favour of the Janata Party, which was registered as Objection Case No. 2981; and the other being by one Sri S.Kanungo praying to enhance the area of the disputed land from Ac.O.35 to Ac.O.48 decimals, which was regis¬tered as Objection Case No.3230. During pendency of the aforesaid Objection Cases, an application was filed by Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar to implead him as a party to those cases. The said application was rejected. A revision was thereafter filed against the order of rejection of the said application before the Commissioner of Consolidation, and the revision was also reject¬ed. But then this Court in OJC No.1592 of 1984 directed to im¬plead Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar as a party to the Objec¬tion Cases. Accordingly he was impleaded. According to Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar, the ex-intermediary had leased out the disputed land in his favour for agricultural purpose and thus a tenancy right was created in his favour before the vesting of the estate with the State Government under the Orissa Estates Aboli¬tion Act and such right is protected and in accordance with Section 8(1) of the O.E.A.Act he is deemed to be a tenant under the State. The Consolidation Officer after hearing all the parties directed that the land in question be recorded in the name of the Secretary, Marfat Puri Zilla Congress Committee. Consequently the Objection Cases filed by Sri Surendranath Nayak and, S.Kanungo and Padma Charan Samanta Singhar were disallowed. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer, Kakatpur, four appeals were filed before the concerned Deputy Director of Consol¬idation which were registered as Appeal Case Nos.125, 127, 128 and 129 of 1984. The Deputy Director disposed of all the said four appeals by a common judgment vide Annexure-I. It was held by the Deputy Director that Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar had acquired the disputed land as a lessee, but then such acquisition was for and on behalf of the Congress Party. He further held that rent was being paid by the Congress Party and the alleged lease deed and rent receipts produced by others were all forged and created documents. On the basis of such conclusion, the appeals were disposed of holding that the Puri Zilla Congress Party was the owner in possession of the disputed land. Against the said common order of the Deputy Director, four Revision Cases were filed before the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubanes¬war. In course of hearing of the Revision Cases, apart from relying upon the oral and documentary evidence already adduced by the parties, they produced a number of other documents in support of their respective claims. Against the said common order of the Deputy Director, four Revision Cases were filed before the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubanes¬war. In course of hearing of the Revision Cases, apart from relying upon the oral and documentary evidence already adduced by the parties, they produced a number of other documents in support of their respective claims. The revisional authority after ana¬lyzing all the materials came to the conclusion that the “Hat Patta” and the rent receipts issued by the ex-intermediary from 1941 to 1952 in favour of Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar cou¬pled with the rent roll submitted by the ex-intermediary and the Khasara Register lead to the conclusion that Padma Charan Samanta Singhar was inducted as a tenant under the ex-intermediary. He further held that on the date of vesting Padma Charan Samanta Singhar was possessing the disputed land as a tenant and, as such, his tenancy right was protected under Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The Commissioner accepted the “Hat Patta” and the rent receipts produced by Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar as the same were more than thirty years’ old. He disbe¬lieved the documents produced on behalf of the other claimants. According to the Commissioner, the disputed land was in permis¬sive possession of different persons belonging to the Congress Party, Utkal Congress Party and Janata Dal, but then such occupa¬tion was always of temporary nature and never created any title in their favour. On the basis of such conclusion the Commission¬er, by the impugned order Annexure-5, allowed Revision Case No.1315 of 1986 filed by Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar and directed the disputed land to be recorded in his favour exclu¬sively. The said order of the Commissioner as stated earlier was assailed in this Writ application by Rabindranath Dixit and he having died in the meanwhile his legal heirs have been substitut¬ed in his place, who are petitioner Nos. 1 (a) to 1(c). 4. It is pertinent to mention here that Rabindranath Dixit was not a party before the consolidation authorities. He claimed to be the President of the Block Congress Committee (1), Kakatpur. As has been stated earlier, he was allegedly removed from Presi¬dentship and his successor who filed a Misc.Case through an advocate for being substituted in this Writ application in place of Rabindranath Dixit or his legal heirs has not given power to any advocate to prosecute the lis. As has been stated earlier, he was allegedly removed from Presi¬dentship and his successor who filed a Misc.Case through an advocate for being substituted in this Writ application in place of Rabindranath Dixit or his legal heirs has not given power to any advocate to prosecute the lis. In any view of the matter, Shri N.C.Pati, learned counsel for Rabindranath Dixit was present before this Court and in order to avoid multiplicity of litiga¬tions he was given opportunity to argue the matter. According to Mr.Pati the Commissioner has acted illegally and with material irregularity in accepting further documents at the revisional stage. It was also forcefully submitted that the settlement records, rent receipts, tenancy ledger and other documents clear¬ly revealed that the Congress Party was the real owner of the disputed land. The Ekpadia produced before the consolidation authorities could not have been accepted. It is further forceful¬ly submitted that the said document had been created for the purpose of litigation and the Commissioner without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the cases, only on the basis of surmises and conjectures and further being influ¬enced by certain influential persons has allowed the Revision Case filed by Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar. It is alleged that the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner are devoid of merit and cannot be sustained. 5. Mr.Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar, at the other hand strongly repudiated the submissions of Mr. Pati. According to him, the Commissioner has considered all the materials produced before him and the conclu¬sions arrived at by him are just, proper and in consonance with law. The consolidation proceedings are always summary in nature and strict principles of the Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act are not applicable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the averments made in the Writ application, the counter affidavits and other materials produced. A scrutiny of the materials reveal that the ex-intermediary had executed an unregistered permanent lease deed ‘Chirasthayee Patta Patra’ on 25th April, 1941 leasing out the disputed land in favour of Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar, the then President of Zilla Con¬gress Committee, Manijanga. The said lease deed has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the Writ application. A scrutiny of the materials reveal that the ex-intermediary had executed an unregistered permanent lease deed ‘Chirasthayee Patta Patra’ on 25th April, 1941 leasing out the disputed land in favour of Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar, the then President of Zilla Con¬gress Committee, Manijanga. The said lease deed has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the Writ application. A perusal of the said lease deed reveals that the words ‘President, Zilla Congress Committee, Manijanga’ were only description and address of the lessee Padma Charan Samanta Singhar. That the land in question had been leased out in favour of aforesaid Padma Charan Samanta Singhar gets corroborated from the rent receipts, Exts.5 to 8 series. The ex-intermediary had also issued the Tenants’ Ledger (EKPADIA) in favour of said Padma Charan Samanta Singhar. It is also not disputed by any of the parties that on the date of vesting of the estate in the State, Padma Charan Samanta Singhar was in possession of the disputed land by virtue of the aforesaid lease deed executed in his favour. Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act protects the rights of the tenants from vesting of the lands in the State. The said section stipulates that a tenant inducted prior to vesting and who is in possession of the land as a tenant on the date of the vesting would continue as a tenant under the State. In other words, he would be deemed to be a tenant under the State. Neither the Zilla Congress Com¬mittee nor the Janata Dal or any other party has produced any document which would reveal that they had acquired any title to the said land. They had also not claimed to be tenants under the ex-intermediary. In view of the aforesaid clear position of law, the Commissioner has rightly accepted the claim of Padma Charan Samanta Singhar and directed recording of the land in question in his favour. A perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner also does not reveal that the said authority has committed any error apparent on the face of the record. This Court while exer¬cising certiorari jurisdiction exercises supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction. This Court cannot substitute a finding arrived by the authorities below if the same is not found to be perverse or shocking to the commonsense. This Court while exer¬cising certiorari jurisdiction exercises supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction. This Court cannot substitute a finding arrived by the authorities below if the same is not found to be perverse or shocking to the commonsense. It has been clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of S.R.Ramraj, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3039 BI, that the High Court while exer¬cising certiorari jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself to a Court of appeal and indulge in appreciat¬ing or evaluating the evidence unless under exceptional circum¬stances, and/or if it finds error apparent on the face of record. 7. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and further in view of the fact that the revisional authority has taken into consideration all the materials and after discussing the same has arrived at the conclusions which are neither perverse nor contrary to law, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner, vide Annexure-5 and dismisses the Writ application. Application dismissed.