JUDGMENT : 1. Although appearance on behalf of the petitioner was made on 11.01.2019 and on prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner the writ petition was directed to be listed under the heading ‘For Admission’ but today on repeated call none represents the petitioner. 2. Mr. Gautam Kumar, S.C (Mines) I for the respondent is present. 3. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 14.12.2016 (Annexure-4) and Annexure-3 for quashing the order passed in Revenue Appeal No.23R/15-1999-2000 whereby and whereunder the appellate authority has determined the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.67,600/- as market value as also the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S. A. R No.80 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the appellate authority in revenue appeal has been declined to be interfered with. 4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the land in question is recorded in the R.S record of right in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner namely late Bigla Bhagat. The ancestors of the petitioner surrendered the land by virtue of registered deed of surrender dated 19.03.1946 to the then landlord M/s Ranchi Zamindari ltd and the then landlord settled the aforesaid land with Fajal Ali, the father of the respondent no.4 on 24.04.1948. 5. The father of the petitioner late Jura Bhagat immediately after coming to know that respondent no.4 and others are in possession of the land he has filed a petition under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for restoration of the land in dispute being R.S. Plot no.448 of Khata No.111 of village Parehapat, post office and police station Kisko, district Loharaga which was registered as S.A.R. Case No.44 of 1975 in the Court of the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Lohardaga, who passed an order for restoration of the land of the petitioner under 3rd proviso to Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act for payment of Rs.1560/- as compensation to the respondent no.4 vide order dated 21.09.1975 and accordingly the land was directed to be restored in favour of the petitioner. 6. 6. The respondent no.4 has preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the Special Officer before the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga which was registered as S.A.R Appeal No.194/R-15/1975-76 but the same was dismissed, setting aside the compensation amounting to Rs.1560/- awarded to the respondent no.4, however, the order of restoration has not been interfered with. 7. The respondent no.4 has preferred revision before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi being Lohardaga Revenue Revision No.48 of 1987 who vide order dated 20.07.1999 has passed an order setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority and the land in question has been decided to be restored in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter before the court below to decide the quantum of compensation afresh, in pursuance thereof, Deputy Commissioner has assessed the quantum of compensation by fixing it @ Rs.650 per decimal and the total amount comes to Rs.67,600/- and the total area of 1.04 acre based upon the report submitted by the Circle Officer and, accordingly the matter was disposed of but the petitioner has assailed the said determination made by the appellate authority by filing a revision being S.A.R No.80 of 2000, who vide order dated 14.12.2016 has declined to interfere with the quantum so determined, on the basis of the reason that the quantum has been assessed after going across the report submitted by the Circle Officer which has been rightly determined on the basis of market value prevalent. 8. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 9. The ground agitated in the writ petition that the amount of compensation so determined is without any justification. 10. Mr. Gautam Kumar, S.C. (Mines) by taking to the stand in the counter affidavit has submitted that the only question which is to be adjudicated by this Court is regarding quantum of compensation since the petitioner being aggrieved from the determination made about quantum of compensation under 3rd proviso to Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as Section 71A of the Act, 1908). He, therefore, submits that the appellate authority as also revisional authority, by going through the market value with respect to land in question, has assessed the quantum of compensation, therefore, it cannot be said to be determined irrationally and without any basis. 11. Heard Mr. He, therefore, submits that the appellate authority as also revisional authority, by going through the market value with respect to land in question, has assessed the quantum of compensation, therefore, it cannot be said to be determined irrationally and without any basis. 11. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned State counsel and gone across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the finding recorded in an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as also the revisional authority-the Commissioner. 12. The undisputed fact in this case is that over the land in question the respondent no.4 has come in possession claimed to have settled by the landlord who has got the land in question by virtue of the surrender said to have been made by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner under the provision of Section 72 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 but the successor in interest, the petitioners, have filed an application under Section 71 of the C.N.T Act and the Special Officer by initiating a regular proceeding and by calling upon the respondent no.4, has passed an order for restoration of land in favour of the petitioner with a direction upon the petitioner to make payment of compensation in favour of respondent no.4 in pursuance to the provision as contained in 3rd proviso to Section 71A of the Act, 1908. 13. 13. The respondent no.4 has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who by passing a detailed order on 20.07.1999 by holding therein that the surrender said to have been made about the said land under Section 72 of the Act, 1908 since has been made without due permission the procedure laid down therein i.e. without affirmation of the Deputy Commissioner by virtue of its amendment incorporated by way of C.N.T Act, 1947 as came in 19.01.1948 and the land having been surrendered in the month of March, 1948 therefore the provision of the C.N.T Act, 1908 read with Amendment Act, 1947 will have its force and as such in case of any surrender as required under Section 72 of the Act, 1908 the permission of the Deputy Commissioner is required since the said provision provides that if the Raiyat is inclined to surrender the land, is required to inform the Deputy Commissioner who on proper adjudication would accord permission to surrender and it is only thereafter the land will come in the possession of the landlord, who thereafter can settle it in favour of the other but the aforesaid procedure has not been followed, therefore the appellate authority has passed an order for restoration of the land in favour of the petitioner without any compensation to be paid in favour of the respondent no.4 as provided under 3rd proviso to Section 71A of the Act, 1908. 14. The sole contention raised by the petitioner that the quantum of amount was determined is not proper and as per the market value. 15. The specific stand has been taken by the State in the counter affidavit that the quantum so determined is based upon the market value and the Circle Officer who on specific direction has conducted an enquiry and by taking into consideration the market value prevalent during the relevant time has assessed the quantum of amount, therefore, the same needs no interference. 16. The petitioner is seeking direction for quashing of the order passed by the appellate authority in Revenue Appeal No.23R/15-1999-2000 as also the revisional order dated 14.12.2016 passed in S. A. R No.80 of 2000 by issuing writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. 16. The petitioner is seeking direction for quashing of the order passed by the appellate authority in Revenue Appeal No.23R/15-1999-2000 as also the revisional order dated 14.12.2016 passed in S. A. R No.80 of 2000 by issuing writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. It is settled position of law so far as power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in issuing writ of certiorari is concerned the same can be issued if there is perversity of finding or the decision so taken is contrary to the statutory provision or there is any infringement of fundamental right and save and except these grounds the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not supposed to interfere with the fact finding based upon the factual aspect place before it otherwise the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be an appellate Court. 18. It needs to refer herein that the scope of interference of the High Court to issue writ of certiorari sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, as has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs. Radhakrishnan reported in A.I.R. 1964 477 Supreme Court wherein at paragraph no.7 their Lordships have held as follows:- “The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 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 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. 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 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. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233 ); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233 ); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168 . 19. In another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sawarn Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868 their Lordships while discussing the power of writ under Article 226 for issuance of writ of certiorari has been please to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as under: “12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra). 13. 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.” 20. In another judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. Vs. In another judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kant Pandey reported in (2015) 4 SCC 270 their Lordships while discussing the scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of interference with the finding of the tribunal has been please to hold by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Guram reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447 at para 17 has held as under:- “17. In case of finding of facts, the court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal V. Laxmibai R. Tarta where this Court observed that the High Court could not in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and reappreciating. Speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J, as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed at page 1301 of the report as follows: …...... power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways v. Sukumar Mukherjee 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. This statement of law was quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bose V. Commr. Of Hills Division and it was pointed out by Sinha, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the court in that case: It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extent to quashing an impugned order on the ground of mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeking that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.” 21. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extent to quashing an impugned order on the ground of mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeking that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.” 21. This Court after going across the factual aspect, more particularly as contained in Annexure-3, Revenue Appeal No.23R/15-1999-2000 as also the revisional order is of the view that the amount of compensation since has been determined on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer who on the basis of the market value of the land during relevant time has determined the quantum of amount and the basis upon which the appellate authority has passed an order which is declined to be interfered with by the revisional authority, therefore, there are two concurrent findings with respect to quantum of amount based upon the report of the Circle Officer, therefore, relying upon the ratio led by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above, this Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders by issuing writ of certiorari. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.