JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. This appeal arises out of order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari as also praying for invoking supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that while the first authority properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record in favour of the appellants because at the time when the application was filed, the names of the appellants were recorded in the revenue record, first and second appellate authority as also the learned Single Judge have adopted palpably erroneous approach, impermissible in law, that it was for the appellants to discloses as to under what authority their names were recorded 4. We have gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities as also order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The orders passed by all the authorities including the authority at the first instance clearly reveal that the names of the respondents and their forefathers were being recorded as khatedars since long and all of a sudden there was a change in the entries. That led to filing of a suit by the earlier recorded khatedars. While the authority at the first instance passed an order in favour of the appellants only on the basis of the entries made in their favour, the first and second appellate authority examined the records and held in favour of the erstwhile recorded owners-khatedars on the basis that once their names were being recorded as khatedars since long, the burden was on the appellants to prove as to on what valid authority earlier names were struck off and their names were recorded. as the appellants failed to lead any oral and documentary evidence to support their case, the appellate authority held against the appellants. 6. Learned Single Judge looking to this aspect dismissed the writ petition. 7. The approach, which has been adopted by the courts below, does not appear to be erroneous in law. The orders do not appear to be either in excess of jurisdiction, nor it is a case of illegality or irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. 6. Learned Single Judge looking to this aspect dismissed the writ petition. 7. The approach, which has been adopted by the courts below, does not appear to be erroneous in law. The orders do not appear to be either in excess of jurisdiction, nor it is a case of illegality or irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. In the absence of violation of any statutory provision in the matter of determination of the dispute of the parties, writ of certiorari could not issued and the same has rightly been denied by learned Single Judge. 8. appeal is accordingly dismissed.