JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 104 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for seeking following reliefs:- “(a) a writ of certiorari quashing or setting aside the order dated 24.12.2002 passed in application dated 13/12/2002 by respondent No. 1; (b) direct respondent No. 4-9 to restore the demolished building of the petitioner; (c) further direct the respondent No. 1 to adjudicate upon the CMA 166, Contempt Petition No. 428/Misc. dated 22/10/2002 and connected petition under Section 151 CPC No. 434/Misc. dated 11/11/2002 consigned to records without final orders; (d) order enquiry whereby the original holders of the land at Salmeri were dispossessed and possession of the said land was assured to the respondent No. 8; (e) direct the State to file FIR against respondent Nos. 8 - 9 and his unknown accomplices for having committed the abuse of the process of law; (f) further directions to the State Govt. to book the then Tehsildar Samba and his subordinate staff who were in hand-in-glove to allot the land measuring Three Kanals and Fourteen Marias comprising Khasra No. 533 when the said Tehsildar along with respondent No. 8 was facing revision petition before learned Divisional Commissioner, Jammu on account of double allotment of land to respondent No. 8 and which petition was later on allowed; (g) further order respondent Nos. 8 and 9 for payment of actual legal costs which the petitioner has spent upon unwanted litigation; (h) Further impose heavy and exemplary costs upon respondent No. 8 and 9 and also upon the official respondents for deliberate non-application of mind.” 2. The factual matrix attending upon invoking of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court may be noticed. 3. Respondent No. 8, on the basis of order dated 24.12.2002 passed by the learned 2 Additional District Judge, Jammu in File No. 48/Misc titled Surjeet Singh v. Ganesh obtained possession of 03 Kanals and 14 Marias of land comprising in Khasra No. 533 from Bajigar families living on the said land and was literally bent upon to dispossess the petitioner from 10 Marias of land situated at village Salmeri Tehsil and District; Samba over which petitioner claimed to have built a Factory in the year 1989. It is averred in the petition that in CMA No. 166/ M, it was prayed that respondent No. 4 i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Jammu be directed to appear in person alongwith record of the land and statement of accounts and also submit report about encroachment made on the land. The trial Court issued notice to the Deputy Commissioner to submit report on or before 02.06.2001. The Deputy Commissioner submitted the report forwarded by Tehsildar Samba. It is alleged in the petition that no consideration was given to the factual report so submitted. Meanwhile, a contempt petition came to be filed against the then Deputy Commissioner, Jammu which was registered as File No. 428/Misc, in which a further prayer for stopping of the construction undertaken on the land measuring 04 Kanals comprising in Khasra No. 536 situated at Village Salmeri was made. The trial Court issued notice on the application and directed Deputy Commissioner, Jammu who was appointed as guardian of the person and property of the minor (respondent No. 8) on 19 May, 1997 to get the construction work stopped through its own agency and submit compliance report. Meanwhile, another petition came to be filed under Section 151 CPC by respondent No. 8 praying for stopping of construction through police agency. The trial Court passed order dated 11 November, 2002 directing the parties to maintain status quo on spot and also directed SHO Police Station Vijaypur to implement the order in letter and spirit. Subsequently, respondent No. 8 filed application for being handed over the property managed by Deputy Commissioner as guardian on the ground that he had attained majority. It is alleged that the deceased Dhararn Chand had two death certificates to his credit i.e., of 15.12.1986 and 14.01.1987. As per the adoption deed, deceased-Dharam Chand had adopted respondent No. 8 in the year 1986 at Jammu. Respondent No. 6-Tehsildar, Samba allotted land measuring 03 kanal and 14 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 533 situated at Village Salmeri Tehsil Samba in favour of respondent No. 8 who claimed that he was short of allotment of land at village Suchetgarh. This was done in terms of order dated 31.03.2003 passed by Tehsildar Samba. Respondent No. 6-Tehsildar, Samba allotted land measuring 03 kanal and 14 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 533 situated at Village Salmeri Tehsil Samba in favour of respondent No. 8 who claimed that he was short of allotment of land at village Suchetgarh. This was done in terms of order dated 31.03.2003 passed by Tehsildar Samba. It is further alleged that one Taro Devi had filed a revision petition before Divisional Commissioner, Jammu for cancellation of double allotment of land in favour of respondent No. 8 and the aforesaid allotment of 03 Kanals and 14 Marias comprising in Khasra No. 533 situated at village Salmeri had been made by respondent No. 6-Tehsildar Samba in favour of respondent No. 8 during the pendency of the revision petition, wherein it was held that there was double allotment of land. It is further alleged that respondent No. 8, in order to dilute the impact of order passed in revision, filed OWP No. 704/2006 alleging non-compliance of order passed by the trial Court. Writ petition was allowed and respondent No. 4 was directed to comply with the order passed by the trial Court. Order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the writ Court was sent for execution to Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Jammu. In compliance thereto Naib Tehsildar submitted report which, inter alia stated that land under Khasra No. 533 (03 Kanals -14 marlas) and Khasra No. 536 (04 Kanals) total 07 kanals -14 marlas was found in physical possession of respondent No. 8-Ganesh adopted son of Dharam Chand who had raised wheat crop thereon. It is further alleged that on the basis of the said compliance report, respondent No. 4 directed Naib Tehsildar Vijaypur to evict the petitioner. It is alleged that even if respondent No. 8-Ganesh was holding physical possession of 03 Kanals and 14 Marias of land comprising in Khasra No. 533, there was no reason to evict the petitioner from 10 Marias of land falling under Khasra No. 533, since the total land under Khasra No. 533 was measuring 12 Kanals and 14 Marias. Petitioner claims to have approached this Court by filing LPA (OW) No. 31/2010 which was dismissed for failure on the part of petitioner to seek leave for filing the appeal, as the petitioner was not a party before the writ Court. Petitioner claims to have approached this Court by filing LPA (OW) No. 31/2010 which was dismissed for failure on the part of petitioner to seek leave for filing the appeal, as the petitioner was not a party before the writ Court. Thus, being armed with the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, respondent No. 8 succeeded in getting a portion of the petitioner's building demolished. It is alleged that the judgment secured by respondent No. 8 from Trial Court on the application dated 13.12.2002 and thereby consigning to records CMA No. 166 dated 22.05.2001 was abuse of process of law, required to be set aside. 4. Notice was issued to respondents 2 to 9 only. Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, the then learned AAG on 23.12.2014 stated at bar that there was no necessity to file reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 7. Respondent No. 9 also did not choose to file reply. Reply has been filed by respondent No. 8 only contesting the petition on the ground that the petitioner is a local resident of Jammu whereas, adoptive father of respondent No. 8 was a displaced person of 1971, thus, petitioner had no right to question the allotment of land made in favour of Dharam Chand, adoptive father of respondent No. 8. It is pleaded that petitioner was not a party in the civil suit pending adjudication before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu thus, had no right to invoke jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 104 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and that too after expiry of more than 12 years. It is further pleaded that no Bajigar family was occupying the land allotted to Dharam Chand, thus, question of dispossession of Bajigar families did not at all arise. It is pleaded that the petitioner had no concern with the land falling under Khasra Nos. 536 (04 Kanals), 572 (40 Kanals 07 Marias), 533 (03 Kanals 14 Marias), 573 (07 Kanal 07 Marias), 575 (08 Kanals) and 535 (01 Kanal) situated at village Samleri Tehsil Samba. It is pleaded that petitioner's claim relates to land measuring 10 Marias covered by Khasra No. 531 only. 536 (04 Kanals), 572 (40 Kanals 07 Marias), 533 (03 Kanals 14 Marias), 573 (07 Kanal 07 Marias), 575 (08 Kanals) and 535 (01 Kanal) situated at village Samleri Tehsil Samba. It is pleaded that petitioner's claim relates to land measuring 10 Marias covered by Khasra No. 531 only. It is further pleaded that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, Tehsildar Samba handed over the possession to respondent No. 8 and an entry to this effect has been made in Khasra Girdawari Rabi, 2013 in respect of Khasra No. 533 measuring 03 Kanals and 14 Marias. It is further pleaded that Dharam Chand died on 14.01.1987 and not on 15.12.1986 as alleged by the petitioner. Entry to this effect has been correctly made by Chief Medical Officer on 21.01.1987. It is further pleaded that initially SHO Police Station, Samba had recorded date of death of Dharam Chand as 15.12.1986. However, on enquiry it was found that actually Dharam Chand has died on 14.01.1987. Dharam Chand had executed an adoption deed in favour of respondent No. 8 and got the same registered on 15.12.1986. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 6 is not party to litigation between respondent No. 8 and Taro Devi. It is pleaded that the petitioner claims to have purchased land measuring 10 Marias out of Khasra No. 531 but he has trespassed over the State land comprising under Khasra No. 533. It is denied that there is any double allotment as the land allotted at village Samleria was in exchange of the land allotted to deceased-Dharam Chand. The Revenue Authorities have restored the possession of respondent No. 8, as per the directions of the Court and entry to this effect has been made in Khasra Girdawari Rabi, 2013 against Khasra No. 533 min. In terms of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA (OWP) No. 31/2010 Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Jammu was directed to ensure implementation of judgment dated 13.11.2009 passed by the writ Court in OWP No. 704/2006 with the specific observation that respondent No. 8 had to be put in physical possession of agricultural land comprising of Khasra Nos. 536 (04 Kanals), 572 (40 Kanals 07 Marias), 533 (03 Kanals 14 Marias), 573 (07 Kanals 07 Marias), 575 (08 Kanals) and 535 (01 Kanal) situated at village Samleri, Tehsil Samba and that respondent No. 8 has got no concern with the land covered 'by Survey No. 531. It is further pleaded that in terms of order dated 19.04.2010 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Vijaypur petitioner was to be evicted from 10 Marias of land falling under Khasra No. 533 and the same was to be handed over to respondent No. 8. Petitioner's building was demolished by the authorities while implementing the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA (OW) No. 31/2010. It is further pleaded that the petitioner not being a party in CMA 166/M and in other CMP(s) pending before respondent No. 1, is not entitled to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. It is further contended that the petitioner having purchased land measuring 10 Marias under Khasra No. 531 from one Ajmir Singh vide sale deed dated 22.04.1988, occupied Khasra No. 533 instead of Khasra No. 531 which did not belong to him. It is pleaded that respondent No. 8 was short of 10 Marias of land out of Khasra No. 533 which was under the illegal possession of the petitioner, thus, the Revenue Authorities, while implementing Division Bench's order dated 22.11.2012, dispossessed the petitioner from Khasra No. 533 measuring 10 Marias of land and delivered the same to respondent No. 8. It is denied that land measuring 03 Kanals 14 Marias falling under Khasra No. 533 was in possession of respondent No. 8 from Kharief 1984. He obtained possession from Menga Ram s/o Moti Ram, Bayaan s/o Manga Rama and Bhagtu in 1987. 4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length and considered the matter. 5. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to have a look on the issue with regard to the ambit and scope of the writ petition under Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir State corresponding to Article 226 of the Constitution of India and petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir State corresponding to Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extra-ordinary in nature and the same is not meant for declaring the private rights of the parties. The remedy under Article 226 is not available unless there is violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority. A writ petition is a remedy in public law which can be filed by any person but the main respondent should be the Government, governmental agencies, State or its instrumentalities / functionaries within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Private individuals cannot be equated with State or its instrumentalities / functionaries. All the respondents in the writ petition cannot be private individuals. However, private individuals acting in collusion with the State can be respondents in a writ petition. The person against whom writ can be issued must have some statutory or public duty to perform. Power under Article 226 is exercised at the instance of persons or citizens for vindication of their constitutional or statutory rights. The relief under Article 226 can be claimed ex debito justitiae or as a matter of right when there is infringement of fundamental rights. However, a petition filed under Article 227, strictu sensu is not a writ petition. The nature of exercise of power under Article 227 stands on substantially different footing. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is neither original nor appellate. Article 227 vests jurisdiction in High Court for both administrative and judicial superintendence. While in its jurisdiction under Article 226 the High Court has power to annul or quash an order or proceedings, jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised to substitute the impugned order by an order which the inferior tribunal should have passed. This is apart from annulling the proceedings or quashing of the impugned order. While power under Article 226 is exercised when a party is affected, the power under Article 227 can be exercised by the High Court suo motu as a custodian of justice. Thus the powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India are distinct and operate in different fields, Interference by the High Court under Article 227 is to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. Thus the powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India are distinct and operate in different fields, Interference by the High Court under Article 227 is to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. However, mere errors of fact or of law cannot be corrected by taking recourse to writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction unless such error is manifest or apparent on the face of the proceedings and a gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Such powers are to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the court dictates it to act to bring failure of justice to halt. Caution and circumspection is to be exercised when such jurisdiction is sought to be invoked, during the pendency of any suit/ proceedings before a subordinate court and the error is capable of being corrected at the conclusion of proceedings though calling for correction. I am fortified in this view by a judgment of the Apex Court in a case titled Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 . The Hon'ble Apex Court after analyzing various decisions rendered by it, formulated the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:- “ On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227, The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different. (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot, be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above. (c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. (c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restraint on the exercise of this power by the High Court. (d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court. (e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, within the bounds of their authority'. (f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. (g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. (h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. (i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. (i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful. (j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. (k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu. (I) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory. (m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. (n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. (o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.” 6. Admittedly, in view of the amendment to Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, no revision lies against the impugned order passed by the learned 2n Additional District Judge in writ petition. However, the remedy by way of revision being not available would not stand in the way of invoking jurisdiction under Section 104 of the State Constitution, if the impugned order suffers from error on the face of record, i.e., the order is in utter disregard of the provisions of law and has occasioned gross failure of justice. The power of superintendence vested in this Court under Section 104 cannot be curtailed by any statute. Invoking of such power would be justified in a case of patent perversity in the order of the subordinate Courts. Curtailing of scope of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure in terms of the amending Act of 2009, in any case, however, would not result in expanding High Courts power of superintendence. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 104 of the State Constitution, this Court has to follow the regime of law notwithstanding the curtailment or barring of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. 7. It is the settled position of law that supervisory jurisdiction vested in the High Court cannot be exercised to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless such error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings, such as when it is based on clear ignorance or is in utter disregard of the provisions of law and gross failure of justice is occasioned thereby. The supervisory jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases to prevent gross failure of justice. It is, therefore, to be seen whether refusal to intervene by invoking supervisory jurisdiction would result in triviality of justice, though being conscious of the fact that the matter is not being heard in appeal and reappraisal and evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing conclusion is not permissible. 8. It is, therefore, to be seen whether refusal to intervene by invoking supervisory jurisdiction would result in triviality of justice, though being conscious of the fact that the matter is not being heard in appeal and reappraisal and evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing conclusion is not permissible. 8. Petitioner assails the legality and correctness of the order dated 24.12.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 on the application of respondent No. 8 dated 13.12.2002. In terms of the aforesaid application, respondent No. 8 urged before respondent No. 1 that since he had attained majority, appointment of Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu as guardian was required to be re-called and Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu was required to be directed to put respondent No. 8 in physical possession of the land after removing encroachments made over the land entrusted to guardian. Respondent No. 1, upon noticing the fact that appointment of one Swarn Singh S/o Shiv Ram R/o Raipur Mangotrian, Jammu, as guardian of the person and property of respondent No. 8-Ganesh, stands withdrawn, vide order dated 19.05.1997 appointed Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu as guardian of the person. and property of the minor-respondent No. 8-Ganesh adopted son of Dharam Chand comprising Khasra Nos. 536 (04 Kanals), 572 (40 Kanals 07 Marias), 533 (03 Kanals 14 Marias), 573 (07 Kanal 07 Marias), 575 (08 Kanals) and 535 (01 Kanal) situated at Samleri Tehsil Samba and upon the application filed by respondent No. 8 -Ganesh registered as CMP No. 166, Collector -respondent No. 4 was directed to submit detailed report in respect of the encroachments made on the land and also submit accounts. He further noticed that the Collector had submitted the factual report and the matter was under consideration. Meanwhile, respondent No. 8 filed application dated 11.11.2002 registered as CMP No. 434/Misc seeking direction in the name of SHO Police Station, Vijaypur to stop illegal construction being raised by some individuals on the land measuring 4 Kanals falling under Khasra No. 536. Respondent No. 1 directed status quo to be maintained while issuing notice to other side. SHO Police Station, Vijaypur was directed to implement the order and submit compliance report on or before 28.11.2002. Respondent No. 1 directed status quo to be maintained while issuing notice to other side. SHO Police Station, Vijaypur was directed to implement the order and submit compliance report on or before 28.11.2002. Respondent No. 8 filed an application dated 13.12.2002 seeking revocation of the order of appointment of Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu as guardian with a further prayer that Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu be directed to put respondent No. 8 in physical possession of the land after removing encroachments, on the ground that he had attained majority. Upon consideration of the application, respondent No. 1 found that respondent No. 8 had completed 21 years of age and thus, having attained majority in terms of provisions of Majority Act, allowed the aforesaid application and order dated 19.05.1997 was withdrawn, whereby respondent No. 2 Collector (Deputy Commissioner) Jammu was appointed as guardian of the property of respondent No. 8. Respondent No. 1 further noticed that the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) in his capacity as guardian being entrusted with the property of minor was supposed to take steps for protecting the property from being encroached upon and referred to the compliance report of SHO Police Station, Vijaypur, wherein it was reported that some encroachment had been made on the land bearing Khasra No. 536. Respondent No. 1 directed the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu to put respondent No. 8-Ganesh in physical possession of the agricultural land described in the application after removing encroachments as reported by SHO Police Station, Vijaypur. Since respondent No. 8 was aggrieved of inaction on the part of Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu in regard to compliance of order dated 24.12.2002 passed by respondent No. 1, he filed OWP No. 704/2006, and the same came to be allowed by this Court on 13.11.2009, wherein Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu was directed to comply with the order dated 24.12.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 and handover the physical possession of the land as mentioned in the aforesaid order to the petitioner (respondent No. 8 herein) after removing encroachments, if any, found within one month from the date of order. The judgment rendered in OWP No. 704/2006 appears to have been assailed by the petitioner herein before a Division Bench of this Court. The Letters Patent Appeal (OW) No. 31/2010 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench on 22.11.2012. The judgment rendered in OWP No. 704/2006 appears to have been assailed by the petitioner herein before a Division Bench of this Court. The Letters Patent Appeal (OW) No. 31/2010 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench on 22.11.2012. Thus, order dated 24.12.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 came to be upheld by the writ Court as also by Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal. Tehsildar, Samba issued an eviction notice No. 1276-78.0-Q dated 12.02.2013 against the petitioner. Appeal filed against the same by the petitioner before (Deputy Commissioner) Collector, Samba came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2013. 9. On a careful, scrutiny of the material on record it emerges that the deceased-Dharam Chand was a displaced person of 1971 and land had been allotted to him in that capacity. Dharam Chand died on 14.01.1987. He executed an adoption deed in favour of respondent No. 8 which was registered on 15.12.1986. Respondent No. 8, being a minor at the time of demise of Dharam Chand, one Swaran Singh was appointed as guardian of the person and property of respondent No. 8. Swaran Singh was subsequently, relieved from the responsibility of being guardian at his own request and Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu was substituted as guardian of the property of respondent No. 8 in place of Swaran Singh. Admittedly, petitioner is a local resident and he was not a party to any of the proceedings pending before respondent No. 1. The impugned order dated 24.12.2002 assailed by the petitioner through the medium of instant petition being upheld in OWP No. 704/2006 and LPAOW No. 31/2010 clinches the issue in regard to the fate of aforesaid order. 8. The dictum of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court is loud and clear. Respondent No. 8 -Ganesh has to be put in physical possession of land falling under Khasra Nos. 536 (04 Kanal), 572 (40 Kanal 07 Marias), 533 (03 Kanal 14 Marias), 573 (07 Kanal 07 Marias), 575 (08 Kanal) and 535 (01 Kanal) situated at Samleri Tehsil Samba. Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu has been directed to implement the judgment dated 13.11.2009 rendered by the writ Court in OWP No. 704/2006 by virtue whereof impugned order dated 24.12.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 has been upheld. Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu has been directed to implement the judgment dated 13.11.2009 rendered by the writ Court in OWP No. 704/2006 by virtue whereof impugned order dated 24.12.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 has been upheld. It appears that the petitioner is not a displaced person and he has no concern with the land for which respondent No. 8 has to be put in physical possession. Respondent No. 8 appears to have been put in possession of the land as per the directions of this Court. The Division Bench judgment makes it amply clear that respondent No. 8 has got no concern with the land covered by Khasra No. 531 and it is for the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Jammu to ensure implementation of judgment of writ Court dated 13.11.2009 strictly in respect of land regarding which the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu was appointed as guardian. 9. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has finally set the controversy at rest. The order dated 24.12.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 directing the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu to put respondent No. 8 in physical possession of the land in respect whereof he was appointed as guardian of the property of respondent No. 8- a minor at that time, has been upheld by the writ Court and by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Respondent No. 8 is armed with a judicial order in regard to restoration of possession of the property for which Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Jammu had been appointed as guardian. Exercise of right under the judicial order upheld by this Court in writ jurisdiction and affirmed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, undoubtedly is exercise of a lawful right and the petitioner cannot claim that the same constitutes an injury in regard to his legal rights in respect of land falling under Survey No. 531, which he claims to have purchased. It is, manifestly, clear that no failure of justice has been occasioned. Thus, no case for invoking of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is made out. 10. There being no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.