JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Notice has validly been served upon the respondent no.4. Hence, service of the notice upon the respondent no.4 is sufficient. 3. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to quash the order dated 12.04.2016 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No.52R 15/2014-15 passed by the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and where under, the order passed by the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No.306 of 2012-13; whereby the land, which is the subject matter of the appeal concerned, has been directed to be restored in favour of the pro-forma respondent of the appeal. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent filed a petition under Section 71A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the court of S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi being the respondent no.3 of this writ petition for restoration of the land measuring 2 katha of Mouza-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, Thana No.203, Khata No.80, plot no. 1517, Dist.-Ranchi alleging that the same has been occupied by the petitioner forcibly and the petitioner has been claiming that he is the raiyat and heir of the recorded tenant. The said case was registered and numbered as S.A.R. Case No. 306 of 2012-13. The petitioner appeared therein and contended that the grandfather of the writ petitioner who was the respondent in the said application under Section 71A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act contended that the grandfather of the petitioner was the recorded tenant of the land in question in 1944-45 through sada hukumnama and constructed house thereon and the case was filed by the heirs of the recorded tenant after 60-65 years of occupation and possession. The S.A.R. Officer revalidated the property in question in favour of the petitioner-respondent at the rate of Rs.1,77,000/- per decimal under second proviso of Section 71A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act vide order dated 07.10.2013. The respondent paid the total amount of Rs.5,86,000/- through demand draft to the respondent no. 4 of this writ petition which has been received by the respondent no.4. After a lapse of a year of time an appeal was filed by the State through S.A.R. Officer being the respondent no.3 which was registered as S.A.R. Appeal No.52R 15/2014-15. The respondent paid the total amount of Rs.5,86,000/- through demand draft to the respondent no. 4 of this writ petition which has been received by the respondent no.4. After a lapse of a year of time an appeal was filed by the State through S.A.R. Officer being the respondent no.3 which was registered as S.A.R. Appeal No.52R 15/2014-15. The writ petitioner appeared in the appeal and claimed that the appeal is barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that house existed before the promulgation of Schedule Area Regulation Act, 1969. The respondent no.2 after hearing the parties condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the appeal and ordered for restoring the land of the pro-forma respondent of the appeal; as already indicated above, in this judgment. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and it is contended that the order passed by the appellate authority was illegal. Relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(C) No. 6487 of 2014 dated 19.02.2015, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts of that case when there was no allegation that there was collusion between the applicant-tribals and the petitioners nor any fraud was alleged to have been played and the power under Section 71 A was exercised by the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner ordered for filing the appeal against the order dated 30.08.2013 and when the private respondent have accepted part payment and were not aggrieved by the order, the coordinate Bench held that Deputy Commissioner has no authority to direct the circle officer to file appeal against the order passed by Special Officer in S.A.R. Case and allowed the writ petition and dismissed the S.A.R. appeal in that case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hansraj Ram & Anr. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(C) No. 4938 of 2016 dated 19.09.2018 wherein in the facts of that case, the coordinate Bench observed that the State Government may assume the status of the aggrieved party and on its behalf any officer duly authorized may prefer an appeal and on the facts of that case when the appeal was preferred on the direction of the respondent no.2 who himself was appellate authority, the coordinate Bench considering the principle that no person can be a judge of its own case and in the facts of that case relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) and reversed the order passed by the appellate court in that case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand opposes the prayer made in this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that this appeal has been entertained by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in exercise of the power vested upon it under Section 251 (5) of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing the revision in terms of Section 217 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the fact of this case is entirely different from the facts of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) and Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra). It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order itself suggest that there was collusion and fraud committed by the S.A.R. officer. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that an inquiry was conducted by the team of experts and certain irregularities were detected in the impugned proceeding by the S.A.R. hence, the State Government took the decision to file an appeal therefore, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order by the respondent no.2. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that an inquiry was conducted by the team of experts and certain irregularities were detected in the impugned proceeding by the S.A.R. hence, the State Government took the decision to file an appeal therefore, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order by the respondent no.2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the learned appellate court has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court to the effect that it is settled proposition of law that a judgment and decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and it can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. It is next submitted that, occasion for referring to the said judgment arose, because it was averred by the appellant state, that the order impugned before the Deputy Commissioner, is an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is crystal clear from the inquiry report and photograph submitted by the team of experts that only recently substantial structure on the land was directed and such erection was made seven to eight years ago; from such report. It is next submitted that from the cogent materials thus available in the record, the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner inferred that S.A.R. Officer has validated the transfer in favour of the respondents illegally; on the pretext that substantial structure has been erected prior to formulation of Schedule Area Regulation. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as there is categorical averment that the order of S.A.R. officer which was impugned before the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner was outcome of fraud and misrepresentation so the ratio of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) is not applicable to this case because of the observation in the said case itself that such observation was made; in the facts of that case, when there was no allegation that there was collusion or that a fraud has been played. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that since Hansraj Ram & Anr. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that since Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) was also passed, basing upon the ratio of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra), so obviously the observations made in Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) in the facts of the case, where there was no collusion or fraud. As there is categorical averment in the appeal memo which has been accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, that the order passed by S.A.R. Officer is outcome of fraud and misrepresentation hence, the ratio of Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that except a bald allegation made in the writ petition; there is no material in the record to suggest that the Deputy Commissioner ordered the S.A.R. Officer to file an appeal. As has been observed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) that State may assume the status of the aggrieved party and in this case it is evident from the copy of the appeal memo annexed with this writ petition as Annexure-2 series; that it is the State who has filed the appeal as aggrieved party and as has been observed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) that on behalf of the State any officer duly authorized may prefer the appeal. It is obvious that the Special Officer Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi has been duly authorized to file the appeal. There is no averment in the writ petition that the Special Officer Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi is not duly authorized person to prefer the appeal on behalf of the State Government or that the State Government is not the aggrieved party. Keeping in view the serious nature of misconduct alleged against the then S.A.R. Officer, including indulgence in fraud and misrepresentation, certainly the State cannot be debarred from filing any appeal. 9. Keeping in view the serious nature of misconduct alleged against the then S.A.R. Officer, including indulgence in fraud and misrepresentation, certainly the State cannot be debarred from filing any appeal. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that scope of interference with an order in exercise of the power vested upon constitutional courts for certiorari is a very limited one and the finding of fact recorded by the court below cannot be interfered with in exercise of such writ jurisdiction as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANR. VERSUS BIKARTAN DAS & ORS. 2023 INSC 733 , paragraph 53 and 77 of which reads as under : 53. Relying on T.C. Basappa (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), laid down the following propositions as well established: “(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.” 77. It being open to the tribunals to come to one or the other conclusion on the materials before them, it cannot by any means be said that the decisions are incorrect so as to attract the extraordinary jurisdiction for interference by a writ of certiorari. In a King's Bench decision in R. v. Brighton and Area Rent Tribunal, (1950) 1 All England Reporter 946, Lord Goddard, CJ. observed that: “… As the tribunal had observed all the formalities of the Act, had offended against none of its provisions or against the regulations made under it, there was no ground for holding that the tribunal's determination was not in accordance with law, and, therefore, the motions for certiorari and mandamus should be refused”. observed that: “… As the tribunal had observed all the formalities of the Act, had offended against none of its provisions or against the regulations made under it, there was no ground for holding that the tribunal's determination was not in accordance with law, and, therefore, the motions for certiorari and mandamus should be refused”. The purpose of certiorari, as we understand, is only to confine the inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction, so as to avoid the irregular exercise, or the non-exercise or the illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in the exercise of powers vested in them under the statute. The accepted rule is that where a Court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which crops up in the case and whether its decision is correct or otherwise, it is bound to stand until reversed by a competent Court. This Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others, (1952) 1 SCC 334 observed: “26. Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases 61where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction may be, it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, law is well settled that the court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. 10. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. 10. There is no dispute that the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner has the power under Section 251 (5) of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 to entertain an appeal preferred against the order passed by S.A.R. Officer. There is no averment in the writ petition that the Deputy Commissioner has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Nor there is any allegation of gross illegality having been committed by the Deputy Commissioner. Undisputedly there is an alternative remedy of filing the revision under Section 217 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 against the order sought to be quashed. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the facts of the case of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) and Hansraj Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) are entirely different from the fact of this case as in this case there is allegation of fraud and misrepresentation and there is specific allegation that order passed by the respondent no.3-S.A.R. Officer was outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. 11. Under such circumstances, there is no justification for this court to interfere with the order sought to be quashed and set aside in this writ petition. Thus this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed.