The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and it cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it.

JUDGEMENT

Behera, J. :- The unsuccessful first party in a proceeding under S.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short) invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the order (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Executive Magistrate declaring some members of the opposite parties to be in possession of the land in dispute and the revisional order (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, maintaining Annexure 3.

2. While the petitioner's claim was based on the settlement of the disputed land in his favour under S.4(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act after the vesting of the estate of the opposite party No. 19 with the State Government in 1974 and his possession of the land as a tenant first under the opposite party No. 19 and then in his own right, the opposite parties, who had contested the petitioner's claim, had claimed to have been inducted as tenants on the basis of Kabuliyat and Hukumnama. Both the contesting parties led oral and documentary evidence which were considered by the learned Executive Magistrate who accepted the case of the opposite parties claiming possession of the disputed land. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found no cause for interference in his revisional jurisdiction.

3. Mr. Ram, appearing for the petitioner, has contended that in view of the order (Annexure-1) passed by the competent Revenue authority settling the disputed land with the petitioner who had been found in possession thereof, the learned Executive Magistrate and the revisional court went wrong in declaring possession with the opposite parties who claimed to be in possession of the land in dispute. It has also been submitted that there was no apprehension of breach of the peace and therefore, the proceeding had been proceeded with without jurisdiction. Mr. Routray appearing for the contesting opposite parties has submitted that there is no ground for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court and the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts cannot be assailed. Mr. Indrajit Ray, the learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, has supported the impugned orders as well-founded.

4. We are not prepared to accept the contention raised by Mr. Routray that in view of the statutory bar contained in S.397(3) of the Code with regard to a second revision after the petitioner unsuccessfully moved the Court of Session, this Court's writ jurisdiction is ousted. In our view, this bar does not affect this court's jurisdiction under Art.227 to interfere with an order made without jurisdiction. Reference may be made in this connection to the view taken by this Court in 1978 Cri LJ 1316 Sashidhar Naik v. Gadadhar Patel relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 232 Swarn Singh v. State of Punjab.

5. While this Court has jurisdiction in a matter like this when there is jurisdictional error or when the principles on natural justice have been violated, we find that it is not a fit case calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

6. We notice from the impugned orders that both the courts had considered the respective cases of the parties and the evidence led by them and found possession of the parties opposing the petitioner. The object of S.145 of the Code is to prevent breach of the peace and for that end. to provide a speedy remedy by bringing the parties before the court and ascertaining which of them is in actual possession and to maintain a status quo until their rights are determined by a competent court. Niceties of title are not to be gone into.

7. Both the first and the revisional courts did consider the cases of both the parties in the light of the documentary and other evidence adduced in support of their claims of possession and took a concurrent view in favour of th