Concurrent factual findings in writ jurisdiction are rarely disturbed unless they suffer from jurisdictional error or lack evidentiary support.

Article states that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory, not appellate, and that concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities are ordinarily immune from interference. Such findings may be disturbed only where there is jurisdictional error, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, reliance on inadmissible evidence, exclusion of admissible evidence, or a finding unsupported by any evidence. Applying that standard, the tenancy finding based on oral and documentary evidence, together with the concurrent revenue conclusions and absence of prejudice from the alleged irregularity, was treated as not perverse or legally vitiated. The High Court therefore properly declined to reopen the factual determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the revenue authorities on the tenant's possession and permissibility of the disputed land.

Analysis: The scope of certiorari under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate. Findings of fact reached on appreciation of evidence cannot ordinarily be reopened in writ proceedings unless the tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, refused to exercise jurisdiction, relied on inadmissible evidence, excluded admissible evidence, or recorded a finding unsupported by any evidence. The disputed finding that the tenant's father was in cultivating possession on the crucial date was based on oral and documentary evidence, and the supposed error in the revenue entry was treated as a clerical mistake. The Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner had all reached the same conclusion, and the alleged procedural irregularity caused no prejudice.

Conclusion: The finding of tenancy was not shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by jurisdictional error, and the High Court was right in refusing to interfere.

Final Conclusion: The writ court cannot act as a court of appeal over concurrent factual determinations of the revenue authorities unless a jurisdictional or legal error is shown.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence are not amenable to interference in certiorari unless they suffer from jurisdictional error, legal inadmissibility, or absence of evidence.

---