JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Hari Bans Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shivam Yadav appears for Kanpur Development Authority. 2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No.24, Kanpur Nagar in Civil Revision No.209 of 2015 (Brij Kishor Trivedi v. Kanpur Development Authority) and the order dated 24.07.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Kanpur Nagar in Execution Case No.29 of 2004 (Brij Kishor Trivedi v. Kanpur Development Authority); for a direction to the respondent to cancel the lease deed dated 13.01.2004 executed in favour of Rama Educational Society before Sub Registrar, Kanpur Nagar by the respondent of petitioner's Arazi No.647 part Rakba 15x25 Sq. M. plot no.8 and for a direction to the respondents to make construction of demolished premises/house No.104-A Barsayatpur, Bisayatpur, Kanpur Nagar and to pay the damage compensation. 3. The record in question reflects that the order impugned dated 24.07.2015 is moreover consented order and so far as compensation regarding damages is concerned, Rs.1.5 lacs was accepted by the decree holder and while disposing the aforesaid case, the execution court was also of the opinion that in case decree holder files any case against the Rama Educational Society, the Kanpur Development Authority would definitely provide due assistance in the said proceedings. The said order has been assailed in the revision and the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 17.2.2017 precisely on the ground that the aforesaid order was moreover consented order. 4. The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that while disposing the execution case, the court below has recorded categorical finding that the decree holder was fully satisfied with the order and assurance was also given by KDA that he would provide assistance if the petitioner-decree holder files any case against the Rama Educational Society. The reason best known to the petitioner even though the consented order has been assailed in the revision under Section 115 CPC, however, the same was also rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned orders so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned orders so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same. 7. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. 8. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the 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 the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the 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 the High Court interferes. 9. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 Hon'ble Supreme 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." 10. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the 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". 11. 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". 11. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566 in which Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. For this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." 13. The said view has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576 and the Apex Court had again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 14. In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition. 15. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 14. In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition. 15. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.