JUDGMENT : Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by “disallowing to put a question to PW 2 on 21.06.2023, in LAOP No.05 of 2022 on the file of the Land Acquisition, (R & R) Authority, Tirupati”. 3. The petitioner’s land was acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and award being Award No.02/2019, vide Rc.No.D1-LA/2012/2017, dated30.07.2019 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu. The petitioner being dissatisfied and objecting to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, preferred LAOP.No.5 of 2022 before the Presiding Officer (Judge), the Land Acquisition, Rehabilation and Resettlement Authority, Tirupati Region, Tirupati. In LAOP No.5 of 2022 he filed an application for summoning of the witness, N.S.M. Veeresh, Licensed Engineer, Pamidi Nagara Panchayat, Ananthapuram District to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner pertaining to the village map and topo plan. To the said application, the counter/objection was filed by the Referring Officer. However, the application was allowed and the said Licensed Engineer was summoned as witness for the petitioner. During examination of such witness, a question was put “What is the Nature of the acquired land? The Presiding Officer objected and disallowed such question being beyond the scope of relief sought for in summoning the witness claimed to be licensed Engineer who was summoned to speak on the Topographical. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by disallowing of such question to the said PW 2 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the petition, the petitioner has not made any prayer, there is no relief clause. When this Court pointed out the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner and asked him as to for what relief the petitioner has approached as no relief has been claimed, he submits that the prayer is not to be made in civil revision petitions. He submits that the grievance of the petitioner is only against disallowing to put such question by the Presiding Officer. 6. The reply is strange. He submits that the grievance of the petitioner is only against disallowing to put such question by the Presiding Officer. 6. The reply is strange. In every case, where the person is approaching any Court, he has to specify for what relief he is approaching the Court, what relief he is seeking from the Court. 7. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has also to specify the prayer or the relief which the petitioner approaching the Court wishes to seek. There should be a relief/prayer clause in the petition. 8. The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, is constituted under Section 51 of the Act 2013 with the composition as under Section 52. The reference on an application of a person who has not accepted the award made to the Collector, the matter may be referred by the Collector for determination of such authority. The proceedings before the Authority are deemed to be judicial proceedings, within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 IPC and the Authority is deemed to be Civil Court for the purposes of Sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under Section 61 of the Act 2013. The Authority has the same power as are vested in Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of many matters as specified in Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 60 of the Act 2013. It has the power of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, and also receiving evidence on affidavits or for that purpose any other matter that may be prescribed. 9. However, that does not mean that every proceeding or every order of the authority is to be challenged in the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is well settled in law that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though is administrative and judicial both, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases to keep the Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises its jurisdiction, within the bounds of its authority. Powers of superintendence cannot be exercised to direct such Court or Tribunal to pass any order/judgment, in a particular manner. 11. Powers of superintendence cannot be exercised to direct such Court or Tribunal to pass any order/judgment, in a particular manner. 11. In TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala, AIR 2011 SC 708 the Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 13 & 14 held as under : “13. Similarly, while it is true that the power of superintendence conferred on the 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 the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. In any event, the power of superintendence cannot be exercised to influence the subordinate judiciary to pass any order or judgment in a particular manner. 14. In Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2006) 8 SCC 294 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 470] this Court observed that: (SCC p. 301, para 14) “14. So, even while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the 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 the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions. It is the members of the subordinate judiciary who directly interact with the parties in the course of proceedings of the case and therefore, it is no less important that their independence should be protected effectively to the satisfaction of the litigants.” (See also Trimbak Gangadhar Telang v. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide [ (1977) 2 SCC 437 ], Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim [ (1983) 4 SCC 566 ] and State v. Navjot Sandhu [ (2003) 6 SCC 641 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545] ) 12. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim [ (1983) 4 SCC 566 ] and State v. Navjot Sandhu [ (2003) 6 SCC 641 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545] ) 12. The Authority disallowed the question, considering that PW 2, the Licensed Engineer was summoned to speak on the topographical, and consequently, the question put by the petitioner on the nature of the acquired land was beyond the scope of the purpose, for which he was summoned on the application of the petitioner which was previously allowed by the authority. 13. It could not be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how that question could be put to PW 2 and as to how on the reason assigned, the Authority has exceeded the bounds of its authority or there is excess or want of jurisdiction. 14. I do not find any illegality in such proceedings of the Authority. 15. In the view of this Court, the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 16. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the credit of the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court of A.P, Amaravathi, within a period of one week from today. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.