JUDGMENT :

B.K. Behera, J. - In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the finding recorded by the Subdivisional Officer, Sundargarh, in a proceeding u/s 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act rejecting the case of the petitioner with regard to possession of the disputed land and accepting that of the original opposite party No, 2 that he had been in possession of the lands in dispute after purchasing a part thereof on September 16, 1951 for a consideration of Rs. 150/- and the remaining part on April 14, 1952 for a consideration of Rs. 175/-for which two unregistered deeds of sale had been executed and had perfected his title over the lands by prescription. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. M. R. Panda has challenged the finding as illegal and unfounded while the learned counsel for the opp. parties have submitted that there is no case for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.

2. It has been a well-settled principle that in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction in writ applications, the High Court should not act as a Court of appeal or revision to correct mere errors of law or of facts as its jurisdiction is merely supervisory. Interference By t