JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 26.05.2010 passed by the Estate Officer (Additional District Magistrate) so as the order dated 07.10.2010 passed on appeal. 2. It is a case where proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short "the Act of 1964"). After hearing the petitioner, the Estate Officer passed the order holding petitioner to be unauthorized occupant. In appeal, petitioner remained unsuccessful. Against those two orders, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has mainly urged that nothing was brought on record to prove title of Forest Department yet order of eviction has been passed. Petitioner is possessing the property for last so many years, which is proved by water and electricity bills. In the light of aforesaid, impugned orders herein deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 5. Perusal of order dated 26.05.2010, passed by the Estate Officer, it has come out that the premises in dispute was in the charge of employee Abdul Gani then it came to the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended while in service of the Forest Department and his Head quarter was changed to Sultanpura. He failed to give charge of Amar Niwas Bhawan, thus petitioner was served with the notice dated 27.06.1987 to vacate the premises. A reply to the aforesaid notice was given, but therein petitioner could not show his title on the property whereas it was found that throughout, property was possessed by different employees of the Forest Department so deputed there. In the light of aforesaid factual background, the Estate Officer passed the order of eviction. In appeal, the finding of fact was upheld. This Court, while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit as a court of appeal for the orders passed by two courts/authorities below more so when it contains concurrent finding of fact. The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 . It would be gainful to quote para 7 & 8 of the aforesaid judgment. The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 . It would be gainful to quote para 7 & 8 of the aforesaid judgment. Para 7 & 8 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 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. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that since the insurer has a remedy by filing an appeal before the High Court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and for that reason, the judgment and order under challenge deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it would be open to the insurer file an appeal if it is permissible under the law." 6. In light of the discussion made above, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit, hence, the same is dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******