JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - The unsuccessful petitioners in the writ petition are the appellants in this appeal questioning the correctness of the order dated 4th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in OJC No.375 of 1995 in affirming the order of the Collector, Gajapati dated 14.12.1994 dismissing the Regulation Appeal No.5 of 1984 and further affirming the order of the Officer-on-Special Duty, Parlakhemundi in R.M.C. No.416 of 1971 initiated on the basis of the allegations made by late Buluka Gamango under Section 3(2) of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 urging various facts and legal contentions. 2. Learned Single Judge has referred to the relevant necessary facts for the purpose of appreciating rival claims of the parties with a view to find out as to whether the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Gajapati and Officer-on Special Duty, Paralakhemundi required to be quashed in the writ petition filed by the appellants in exercise of judicial review power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is no need for this Court to dwell upon the facts as it would be repetition of the same except referring to the legal grounds urged in this appeal with a view to find out as to whether any substantial question of law involved in this appeal in affirming the order of the Col1ector who has exercised his appellate jurisdiction and affirmed the order of the Officer-on-Special Duty in restoring the land in favour of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. 3. The ground of attack of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is that the authorities passed the impugned order in the writ petition are contrary to the settled principles of law that the learned Single Judge has failed to exercise writ jurisdiction, though it is pointed out that the impugned order of the appellate authority is erroneous and error in law for want of legal evidence to justify the claim of the Respondents 4 and 5 and the same is vitiated in law. Not noticing the aforesaid important legal ground dismissed the writ petition would certainly warrants interference by this appellate Court to set aside the impugned order and quash the orders impugned in the writ petition under Annexures-8 and 9. 4. Not noticing the aforesaid important legal ground dismissed the writ petition would certainly warrants interference by this appellate Court to set aside the impugned order and quash the orders impugned in the writ petition under Annexures-8 and 9. 4. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not come forward to adduce the evidence to show semblance of right over the land in question. Mere assertion in the application filed by the original applicant under the Regulation, the order of the Officer on Special Duty and Appellate Authority are bad in law. There is evidence on behalf of the appellants in support of their right and possession over the property in question, which has been ignored while passing the impugned orders by the Officer-on-Special Duty, Parlakhemundi and Collector, Gajapati in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, it is urged on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised his judicial review power and quashed the same by allowing the writ petition. The Officer-on-Special Duty, Parlakhemundi and Collector, Gajapati have not found prima facie material evidence to prove claim of Late Buluka Gamango, the original applicant to show that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such material, the Officer-on-Special Duty, Parlakhemundi and Collector, Gajapati should not have passed the order under the Regulation in respect of the land in question. The learned Single Judge has lost sight of the fact of deficiency of evidence in passing the impugned orders challenged in the writ petition. He ought to have interfered with the same by quashing the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. Not doing so, the appellants have filed this appeal contending that substantial question of law would arise in this appeal as there is error apparent on the face of the record in the orders impugned in the writ petition. Non-consideration of the same by the learned Single Judge and affirming the said order would certainly be the substantial question of law that would arise for consideration of this Court and grant relief in this appeal. 5. Non-consideration of the same by the learned Single Judge and affirming the said order would certainly be the substantial question of law that would arise for consideration of this Court and grant relief in this appeal. 5. Further the learned counsel has urged that learned Single Judge has not noticed non-consideration of the relevant fact of late Durman Paik who is the father of the appellant Nos.1 to 3 adduced oral evidence and other independent evidence by examining the competent witnesses and produced settlement records of the land in question in support of his claim and the original applicant Buluka Gamango has not made out any prima facie case of the property in question except making baseless assertion. Therefore, the impugned orders in the writ petition are vitiated in law. This important legal aspects of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, as a result of which the impugned order is liable to be set aside 6. Further, it is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the proof of right title, interest or possession of the original applicant Buluka Gamango under Section 3(2) or 3-A(1) of Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956 before recording a finding that entries in the settlement record in favour of late Durman Paik do not extinguish title of the original applicant in respect of the property in question. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing this appeal and quash the orders impugned under Annexures-8 and 9 in the writ petition by issuing a writ of certiorari. 7. With reference to the above said factual and legal contention urged on behalf of the appellants, this Court has carefully examined the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge with a view to find out as to whether the appellants have made out a case for interference, with the impugned order in this appeal and the appellants are entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in this 'writ petition? What order? 8. What order? 8. The aforesaid points are required to be answered against the appellants for the following reasons :- Learned Single Judge has adverted to the relevant necessary facts at paragraph-2 of the judgment and thereafter referred to the legal contentions urged on behalf of the appellants and held that although there was some doubt regarding inclusion of Lanjia Saora among the Scheduled Tribes, at present Lanjia Saora has been specifically included under entry 59 by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Amendment Act, 2002 (Act No.10 of 2003). Therefore, the dispute between the parties is confined to rival claim of the title of the parties over the case land. Pursuant to the orders of Officer-on-Special Duty and Appellate Authority under Annexures-8 and 9, the name of late Buluka Gamango has been recorded in the Record of Rights. Further contention urged on behalf of the appellants that the entries in the name of Durman Paik in the Record of Rights are valid entries as the same has been entered by the Settlement Authority. In that view of the matter, the contention urged is that either the Officer-on-Special Duty or the Collector should not have recorded the finding of fact holding that the land belonged to late Buluka Gamango. The said contention is rightly not accepted by the learned Single Judge by recording a finding with reference to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No.4, the wife of late Buluka Gamango and held that the appellate authority has recorded a concurrent finding of fact holding that the land belonging to Tribal land owner was taken on mortgage by appellants' father without obtaining permission from competent authority. Therefore, he has rightly held that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority cannot be interfered with by learned Single Judge in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Further learned Single Judge was satisfied in coming to such conclusion and concurrent findings on record by the appellate authority by placing reliance on the admission made by late Durman Paik, the father of appellants wherein he has stated that he had given up cultivation of the said land after institution of the proceedings by late Buluka Gamango. Further, he has rightly held that it is for the non-tribal to establish the claim of valid title and legal possession over the said land. Further, he has rightly held that it is for the non-tribal to establish the claim of valid title and legal possession over the said land. Therefore, learned Single Judge came to the right conclusion on facts with reference to the findings and held that impugned orders under Annexures 8 and 9 passed by the Officer-on-Special Duty and the Collector do not warrant interference in the writ petition proceedings. 9. Further, learned Single Judge after placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others., reported in (2003)6 SCC 675 where nature and scope of exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been pointed out and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction following the three cardinal principles are extracted in the impugned order by the learned Single Judge to find out as to whether he has to exercise his supervisory jurisdiction to quash the orders impugned in this writ petition, keeping in view that whether subordinate Courts are within the bounds of their jurisdiction or not? 10. With reference to the cardinal principles, laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred case, the learned Single Judge examined the legal grounds urged in the writ petition and has held that power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Further, it has held that the High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and undertake to re-appreciate or evaluate the evidence on record or correct errors in drawing interferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has held that this Court for the purpose of exercising the writ of certiorari jurisdiction he shall not act as a appellate Court and step into re-appreciating or evaluating the evidence on record and substitute its own findings in place of the findings recorded by the subordinate Courts. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has held that this Court for the purpose of exercising the writ of certiorari jurisdiction he shall not act as a appellate Court and step into re-appreciating or evaluating the evidence on record and substitute its own findings in place of the findings recorded by the subordinate Courts. Therefore, the learned Single Judge applying the principles laid down in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others referred to supra in support of the concurrent finding of the District Collector, has rightly held that the appellate authority's order is perfectly legal and valid and therefore, we declined to interfere with the order passed by it in the writ petition. 11. Learned Single Judge has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and others., reported in AIR 1955 SC 233 in support of his conclusion that the scope of the writ of certiorari and conditions under which this Court can issue the above writ, the propositions of law laid down in that case are required to be established. Learned Single Judge has rightly extracted the relevant portion from the above judgment in this impugned judgment wherein the Supreme Court has held that High Court can exercise its judicial review power for issuance of a writ of certiorari to correct an error of law. But it is essential for this Court that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record with reference to the above legal principle it is held that is lacking in the case on hand. Therefore, he declined to grant the relief to the appellants. With reference to the above said principles, at paragraph-9, learned Single Judge has examined findings recorded by the appellate authority in its order and rightly came to the conclusion and held that the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority is based on proper appreciation of legal evidence on record, therefore grant of relief in favour of Respondents 4 and 5 in respect of the land in question under Regulation 2 of 1956 is legal and valid. With reference to the documents upon which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding Record of Rights wherein entries in the name of late Durman Paik was prepared by the settlement authority in course of settlement operation in the year 1973 and on the basis of the above evidence his title was established over the land in question is the contention urged. With reference to the said contention, learned Single Judge has opined that this document was prepared by the Settlement Authority in the name of late Durman Paik in the Record of Rights, which fact was brought to the notice of the Court in course of hearing. Further, learned Single Judge has held that in course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants do not indicate the basis of possession over the case land. Learned Single Judge further observed that the case land appears to have been recorded in the name of late Durman Paik in the Record of Rights on the basis of long possession made before settlement authorities. Thereafter, learned Single Judge has referred to the decisions of this Court in the case of Krushna Das and others v. Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack and others., reported in 2001 (I) OLR 288 and Kishore Chandra Das and another v. Gouranga Das and others., reported in Vol. 62(1986) CLT 322 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 and rightly held that in the absence of valid document establishing late Durman Paik's title, over the case land, entries made in his name in the Record of Rights is of no help to the appellants and further held that entries in the Settlement Records do not create or extinguish title over the property. Further it is held that presumption of entries in the Record of Rights over the land in question has been rebutted by oral evidence adduced on behalf of the tribal land owner, i.e. father of Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition by taking correct view stating that the findings of fact on the contentions issue recorded by the appellate authority affirming the order of the Officer-on-Special Duty does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. The appeal is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. I agree. Appeal dismissed.