JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate order or direction to the extent of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by respondent No.1-Additional Deputy Commissioner Kulgam with the powers of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner under J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 in appeal titled Abdul Gani Malik Vs. Mohammad Yousuf Lone & Ors., by virtue of which mutation order Nos. 1129 (under Section 4) and 1157 (under Section 8) dated 19.09.1999 of village Nagam Tehsil D.H.Pora District Kulgam with respect of land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas falling under Survey No. 558 min were set aside and respondent No.2 was directed to attest fresh mutations. Besides the petitioner seeks writ of Mandamus commanding respondent No.2-Tehsilder, D.H.Pora, District Kulgam to correct the records on the basis of the report submitted by him to respondent No.1 vide No. TDHP/OQ/2021-22/101 dated 16.06.2021 and restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas falling under Survey No. 558 min situated at Nagam Tehsil D.H.Pora District Kulgam. 2. Aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, petitioner has filed the instant petition. 3. The short grievance which has been projected by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bilal Ahmad Malla is that the learned Agrarian Reforms Commissioner has committed grave error of law and has exceeded his jurisdiction and instead of directing the correction of records in light of the report submitted by Tehsildar D.H.Pora dated 16.06.2021, has allowed the appeal and the mutations mentioned supra of the land in question were set aside directing Tehsildar to attest fresh mutations in accordance with law after conducting denovo enquiry. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.3 has filed belated appeal before respondent No.1 and has challenged the mutations mentioned supra seeking quashment of the same on the ground that he is in exclusive possession of the land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas falling under Survey No. 558 min situated at village Nagam of Tehsil D.H.Pora and the appeal was accompanied with condonation of delay application, to which application, petitioner has filed detailed objections seeking dismissal of the application on the ground of delay. Further case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner Kulgam, a report was sought by him from respondent No.2, and accordingly, respondent No.2 (Tehsildar D.H.Pora District Kulgam) submitted detailed report vide No. TDHP/OQ/2021-22/101 dated 16.06.2021 after sending the concerned Naib Tehsildar on spot along-with Naib Tehsildar Qasba Khull and Patwari concerned. The report reveals that the mutation No. 1129 (under Section 4) and 1157 (under Section 8) with regard to land measuring 4 kanlas 15 marlas has been wrongly attested in favour of the petitioner from Survey No. 558 instead of 555 and further submitted that the land of the petitioner falling under Survey No.555 is under his physical possession as per the spot verification, and accordingly submitted that the records may be corrected. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.1 instead of directing correction of the records has allowed the appeal and set aside the mutations mentioned supra and directed respondent No.2 to attest fresh mutations. Learned counsel further argued that the order impugned dated 02.12.2021 passed by respondent No.1 in a composite appeal is bad in law and procedure, as the learned court of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Kulgam entertained the appeal with regard to two mutation orders, one passed by the Settlement Tehsildar Kulgam under Section 4 and another by Naib Tehsildar under Section 8, and thus, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel further submits that the order impugned otherwise is not sustainable, as the respondent No.1 has not adhered to the principles laid down for condoning delay and the delay was condoned on 18.11.2021, even though there was delay of more than 20 years in preferring the appeal against the aforesaid mutation orders. Further, argument of learned counsel is that respondent No.3 under the garb of order impugned is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. 4. Per contra, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, in which stand has been taken that the writ petition raised disputed, complicated and intricate questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 Mr. 4. Per contra, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, in which stand has been taken that the writ petition raised disputed, complicated and intricate questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 Mr. M.A. Qayoom, submits that the petitioner has neither any cause of action nor any kind of equity in his favour to seek the indulgence of this Court for setting aside the order impugned which is the order of remand and the writ petition under Article 227, accordingly is not maintainable. Learned counsel argued that by virtue of the order impugned, respondent No.1 has set aside the mutation orders which have been attested illegally under Sections 4 and 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act and in turn, directed Tehsildar to attest fresh mutations after conducting denovo enquiry and thus, there is no illegality in the order impugned. Learned counsel has relied upon the report of Tehsildar D.H.Pora and has vehemently argued that the order impugned passed by respondent No.1 is perfectly valid and deserves no interference, as the respondent No.1 has rightly allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.3 (appellant therein) by setting aside the mutations under Sections 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act with further direction to Tehsildar to attest fresh mutations in accordance with law after conducting denovo enquiry. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submits that the petitioner has unnecessarily filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is liable to be dismissed at very threshold on the ground that once respondent No.1 on the basis of the report furnished by Tehsildar has found that respondent No.3 is physically in possession of the land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas covered by Survey No.558 and that the mutations under Sections 4 & 8 in respect of the said land have wrongly been attested in favour of the petitioner, then respondent No.1 had no other option but to set aside the mutations mentioned supra by directing denovo enquiry. Thus, according to learned counsel, the order impugned is legally sustainable and the challenge thrown to the same is ill-founded. 5. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondents 1 & 2. Ms. Thus, according to learned counsel, the order impugned is legally sustainable and the challenge thrown to the same is ill-founded. 5. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondents 1 & 2. Ms. Shaila Shameem, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner has no fundamental or legal right to file the instant petition, as the right of the petitioner has not been snatched, only Tehsildar D.H.Pora was directed to inquire afresh in the matter and attest fresh mutations. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. Petition is admitted to hearing and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, same is taken up for final disposal at this stage. 8. From the perusal of the order impugned passed by respondent No.1, it is manifestly clear that after hearing both the parties, the application for condonation of delay was allowed on 18.11.2021 and the said order was gladly and voluntarily accepted by the petitioner, as the petitioner did not raise any grouse against the same, and instead, argued the matter on merits on the next date of hearing. 9. After having accepted the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 18.11.2021, whereby the application for condonation of delay was allowed, the petitioner is estopped under law to question the maintainability of appeal on the ground that the appeals were time barred, more particularly, when the petitioner has gladly and voluntarily accepted the said order and has consented to argue the case on merits on the next date of hearing. After having waived off his right to challenge the aforesaid order, the ground of delay is not available to the petitioner at this stage and thus, same is rejected for the reasons stated hereinabove. 10. The appeal has been allowed by respondent No.1 on the basis of the report submitted by Tehsildar D.H.Pora, wherein it is revealed that the entire land under survey No. 558 is under the cultivation of Ab. Gani S/o Gh. Rasool Malik (applicant) resident of Nagam and from survey No.555 min land measuring 4 kanals and 15 marlas is under the possession of Mohd Yousuf Lone S/o Gulla Lone (non-applicant). The report further reveals that as per spot and statement of some farmers, the mutation no. Gani S/o Gh. Rasool Malik (applicant) resident of Nagam and from survey No.555 min land measuring 4 kanals and 15 marlas is under the possession of Mohd Yousuf Lone S/o Gulla Lone (non-applicant). The report further reveals that as per spot and statement of some farmers, the mutation no. 1129 (Section 4) and mutation No.1157 (Section 8) land measuring 4 kanals and 15 marlas has been wrongly attested in favour of Mohd Yousuf S/o Gulla Lone from survey number 558 instead of 555. The report further reveals that Mohd Yousuf S/o Gulla Lone has bought land measuring 4 kanals and 15 marlas from Hassan S/o Rasool Malik from survey no. 555 and is under his possession as well (as per spot) and the applicant is seeking correction of survey number (555 instead of 558) in the said attested mutations. 11. In the light of the report submitted by Tehsildar D.H.Pora, the appeal filed by respondent No.3 was allowed and the mutations bearing Nos. 1129 min and 1157 min of village Nagam, with regard to the land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas falling under Survey No. 558 min attested under Sections 4 & 8 of Agrarians Reforms Act were set aside by directing Tehsildar, D.H.Pora to attest the fresh mutations in accordance with law after conducting denovo enquiry. Once the respondent No.1 on the basis of the report furnished by Tehsildar has found respondent No.3 in physical possession of the land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas covered by Survey No. 558 and also the fact that the mutations under Section 4 & 8 in respect of the said land have wrongly been attested in favour of the petitioner, who is in possession of the land covered under Survey No.555 min and not under Survey No.558, he had no other option but to set aside the mutations mentioned supra by directing denovo enquiry. Thus, I do not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the order impugned for interference by this Court which is well reasoned while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of supervisory jurisdiction. 12. It is settled law that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution exercise power of superintendence over all the Courts and the Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which, it exercises jurisdiction. 12. It is settled law that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution exercise power of superintendence over all the Courts and the Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which, it exercises jurisdiction. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been : (a) An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court or tribunal; or (b) Gross abuse of jurisdiction; or (c) An unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the courts or tribunals. 13. In this regard, I am fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported as (2003) 3 SCC 524 : “The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal”. 14. In Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported as (2010) 8 SCC 329 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority. 67. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority. 67. As a result of frequent interference by the Hon’ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, the Hon’ble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly”. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case titled ‘Estralla Rubber Versus Dass Estate (P) Ltd.’ reported as (2001) 8 SCC 97 , has held : “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to. 7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand in AIR Para 12 has stated that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors. Reference also has been made in this regard to the case Waryam Singh v. Amarnath. This Court in Bathutmal Raich and Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte has observed that the power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal and that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. Judged by these pronounced principles, the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 in passing the impugned order”. 16. In light of the aforesaid discussion coupled with the settled legal position, I am of the view that it is not a case where this Court can exercise power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the order impugned passed by respondent No.1 is perfectly legal and justified and does not call for interference and accordingly, the same is upheld. Thus, the instant Writ Petition is devoid of any merit, and accordingly, is dismissed along-with all connected application(s) and this Court refrains from exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution by acting as an appellate court in the light of the principles formulated by Apex Court in catena of cases.