JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of CO dated 27.3.2012, SOC dated 6.12.2013 and DDC dated 16.2.2015 and 22.4.2016 passed in title proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of share of Hameed son of Munsi recorded in basic consolidation year khata nos. 117, 124, 166, 167 and 177 of village Mustafapur, Tehsil Kant, Distt. Moradabad, which were recorded in the names of Farukhi wife of Hameed as well as daughter of Hameed and Ali Hasan, Chhiddu alias Ahmad Hasan and Rahmatullah sons of Majid. ACO and CO by separate orders dated 1.4.2002, 4.6.2002, 26.3.2003, 26.6.2003 and 28.7.2003 divided the khata in dispute holding ½ share of Farukhi, respondent-4. The predecessor of the petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders in separate appeals before SOC. These appeals were dismissed by SOC by order dated 12.12.2007. Thereafter they filed five separate revisions which were allowed by DDC by order dated 26.7.2011 and matter was remanded to CO to try the issue between the parties and decide it afresh. 4. After remand before the CO, the petitioner apart from documentary evidence, examined Ali Hasan son of Majid, Bhura and Firasan sons of Ali Hasan as witnesses. Farukhi apart from documentary evidence examined herself, Jamil Ahmad, Mohd. Hasan and Ahmad Hussain as the witnesses before CO. At the time of argument, the petitioner avoided hearing before the CO therefore CO by exparte order dated 27.3.2012 dismissed the objection of the petitioner holding that from nikahnama dated 18.5.1965 and sale deed executed by Farukhi dated 16.12.2005 in which Riyasat son of Chhiddu was witness as well as oral statement of Farukhi, it was proved that Farukhi was daughter of Hameed. Hameed son of Munshi had two issues namely Safayat and Farukhi. After the death of Hameed name of Safayat was mutated. Safayat was also died issueless as such name of Farukhi was mutated in the revenue record in khatauni 1384 F. Co-incidentally, name of husband of Farukhi was also Hameed, who is resident of Madhaiya Payantikalan. 5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal, the appeal was heard by SOC who by the order dated 6.12.2013 held that the petitioner could not adduce any independent witness of the village apart from his family members. 5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal, the appeal was heard by SOC who by the order dated 6.12.2013 held that the petitioner could not adduce any independent witness of the village apart from his family members. However Farukhi filed affidavits of herself, Jamil Ahmad son of Habibullah, Mohd. Raja urf Allahnoor, Mahmood Hasan son of Gulam Rasool, who were aged about 60, 68 and 70 years respectively and resident of village Bibipur, tehsil Kanth Dsitt. Moradabad. In the affidavits their photos were also affixed and they have stated that Farukhi was daughter of Hameed and sister of Safayat. Farukhi was married to Hameed resident of village Madhaiya Payantikalan. Pradhan has also issued certificate that Safayat died during his minority as issueless and was inherited by his sister Farukhi. She has also filed voter list of Legislative Assembly Seat Kanth of the year 2009 and nikahnama dated 18.5.1965 as well as registered sale deed executed by her. From these documents as well as oral evidences, it was proved that she was daughter of Hameed and sister of Safayat. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision before DDC. DDC by the order dated 16.12.2015 affirmed the finding of SOC and dismissed the revision. The petitioner filed a recall application for recalling the aforesaid order which was also dismissed by order dated 22.4.2016. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that before the CO, proper opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner. The case was listed for evidence of Farukhi and in the meantime, the Advocates went on strike due to which the case was continuously adjourned on 7.2.2012, 8.2.2012, 13.2.2012 and 16.2.2012 and CO fixed 19.3.2012. As the CO was inclined to decide the case against the petitioner as such the petitioner filed an application for transferring the case from his court to any other court. But in the meantime, CO by the order dated 27.3.2012 decided the case on merit. Since the case was listed for evidence of the parties as such without closing the evidence and fixing any date for hearing, CO should not have heard the objection but he mala fide decided the objection by exparte order. In such circumstances, the order was liable to be set aside. Since the case was listed for evidence of the parties as such without closing the evidence and fixing any date for hearing, CO should not have heard the objection but he mala fide decided the objection by exparte order. In such circumstances, the order was liable to be set aside. The petitioner could not cross-examine the witnesses of Farukhi including herself due to Advocates' strike and thereafter the case was decided hurriedly. Her statement was not liable to be read in evidence. Appeal as well as revision of the petitioner have also been dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the records. In paragraph two in the memorandum of revision, the petitioner has stated that the case was listed for evidence of Farukhi , opposite party. It has not been stated that case was listed for cross-examination of Farukhi. Neither order sheet in this respect nor statement of witnesses was filed by the petitioner along with writ petition. Before SOC, Farukhi in her argument has specifically argued that Farukhi examined herself as well as witnesses Jamil Ahmad, Mohd. Hasan and Ahmad Hussain. Thus from her argument, it appears that four witnesses were examined by her, who were resident of Bibipur, which is the original place of residence of the parties. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed that petitioner has not cross-examined the witnesses of Farukhi namely Farukhi, Jamil Ahmad, Mohd. Hasan and Ahmad Hussain. 8. According to the allegations made in the memorandum of revision, the case was listed for argument on 19.3.2012 before CO. Instead of arguing the case on merit, the petitioner absented in the court of CO and filed transfer application for transferring the case from his court. Thus the absence of the petitioner before CO was deliberate. By the order of DDC dated 26.7.2011, the matter was remanded before CO giving opportunity of evidence and hearing to the petitioner. After remand the petitioner was appearing before CO. He has also examined his witnesses as well as filed documentary evidence. It is only at the stage of argument, he deliberately committed default as such he could not derive any benefit of his own manoeuvring. After remand the petitioner was appearing before CO. He has also examined his witnesses as well as filed documentary evidence. It is only at the stage of argument, he deliberately committed default as such he could not derive any benefit of his own manoeuvring. CO relied upon the statement of Farukhi, original nikahnama dated 18.5.1965 of Farukhi in which name of father of Farukhi was noted as Hameed resident of Bibipur and registered sale deed dated 16.12.2005 executed by Farukhi in which Riyasat son of Chhiddu has signed the deed as witness. These are very crucial evidences which proved that Farukhi was daughter of Hameed and sister of Safayat. The finding of fact recorded by the consolidation authorities relying upon the aforesaid evidences cannot be said as perverse. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is unable to set aside that finding of fact. 9. Supreme Court in Sawarn Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 232 , held that in regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice." 10. Again in Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 SC 2532 , held that the question about the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the court or tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercise." 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.