JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal & Shamsher Bahadur Singh, JJ. 1. Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. 2. Order dated 17.5.1993 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Allahabad on an application under Section 9 of The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition etc.) Act,1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1962') has been challenged in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that in notice issued to petitioners under Section 9, respondents stated that construction raised by petitioners is on their own land, hence question of encroachment does not arise. 4. Secondly, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that it is responsibility of respondents to prove encroachment, if any, made by petitioners but they failed to do so. 5. Thirdly, it is submitted that if an order of demolition of construction or removal, etc. is passed so as to effect a person's right in the property but no provision for compensation is made, then proceedings will be ultra-vires to Articles 14 and 19 of Constitution of India. Therefore, sub-section (3) of Section 9, as inserted by Amending Act No.13 of 1977, w.e.f. 3.2.1977, is ultra-vires. 6. Coming to questions 1 and 2 and considering same together, we find from record that survey report and map i.e. paper 15-C/2 and Ext.-1 show that encroachment has been made by defendants but defendants failed to prove that construction raised are on the land allotted to them by U.P. Awas Evas Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as 'AEVP') and not otherwise. 7. Court below has observed that it was open to defendants to get measurement of land on the basis of sale deed and map and to show that entire construction raised is on the land allotted by AEVP but by defendants no such evidence has been placed. This is a finding of fact recorded by Court below. In the absence of any proof that finding recorded by Court below is perverse, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, we do not find any justification to interfere in the matter. 8. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution does not sit in appeal and in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. 8. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution does not sit in appeal and in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct errors in orders of Court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. 9. This power involves a duty on High Court to keep inferior Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within limits of jurisdiction of Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless High Court interferes. 10. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58, Court said: "Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere." 11. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined scope of Article 227 of Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p. 571 : "This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193 , to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors". 12. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors., AIR 1984, SC 38 Court held that this Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution and even errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power can be used sparingly when it comes to conclusion that Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. The power can be used sparingly when it comes to conclusion that Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. For interference, there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where order of Tribunal, etc. has resulted in grave injustice. 13. For interference under Article 227, finding of facts recorded by Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors factual and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895 ; Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746 ; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896 ; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576 ; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300 ; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749 ; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47 ). 14. It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (See: Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998) 3 SCC 341 ; Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70 ; Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171 ; and Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 143 ). 15. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter conclusion reached by Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union of India & ors. Vs. Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521 ). 16. In Ajaib Singh Vs. 15. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter conclusion reached by Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union of India & ors. Vs. Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521 ). 16. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999), 6 SCC 82, Court has held that there is no justification for High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of Authorities/Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 17. In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931 , Court said that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not appealable but supervisory. Therefore, it cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or findings are totally perverse. 18. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000), 4 SCC 245, Court observed that it is impermissible for Writ Court to reappreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over awards passed by Tribunal. Findings of fact recorded by fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for mere reason of having based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken High Court can not interfere. 19. In Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472 , Court observed that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate evidence nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in place of findings of Authorities below. 20. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & ors., (2001) 1 SCC 4 ; Extrella Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 ; and Omeph Mathai & ors. Vs. 20. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & ors., (2001) 1 SCC 4 ; Extrella Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 ; and Omeph Mathai & ors. Vs. M. Abdul Khader, (2002) 1 SCC 319 . 21. In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675 , it was held that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227, High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, it also said that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 22. In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006), 8 SCC 294, Court said: "...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions." 23. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010), 8 SCC 329, Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that wheel of justice does not come to a halt and fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in functioning of Tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010), 8 SCC 329, Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that wheel of justice does not come to a halt and fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in functioning of Tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650. 24. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432 , Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction. 25. In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others (2011), 2 SCC 772, Court said that power of superintendence conferred on High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority. 26. In Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244 , Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma (2001), 9 SCC 592, observed that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227. 27. Now we come to third question. Once finding recorded by Court below that there was encroachment on part of petitioners, question of compensation does not arise and submission that Sub-section (3) of Section 9, as inserted by Amending Act No.13 of 1977, w.e.f. 3.2.1977, is ultra-vires, does not arise at all. Submission is thoroughly misconceived and has no basis. In result, we find no error apparent on the face of impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. 28. Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. 29. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.