The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash orders of subordinate authorities only in appropriate cases to keep them within the bounds of their authority, and not for correcting mere errors.

1. In this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the order passed by the Collector of Karnal on 21-2-1959 and that of the Commissioner of Ambala Division on 14-4-1959, are sought to be quashed for the reason that they contravene the provisions of law. I may state at once that the Collector of Karnal and the Commissioner of Ambala Division, whose orders have been questioned in this petition have not been impleaded as respondents, and this is one of the grounds for the rejection of this petition. Before I deal with the questions which call for determination, I may briefly set out the facts of the case.

2. Parcels of waste land in village Bherian and Gumthala aggregating about 330 acres were acquired under the East Punjab Utlliza of Lands Act (East Punjab Act No. 38 of 1949) and subsequently leased out to the petitioner, Phalgu Dutt, for a period of seven years commencing from Kharif 1951. Before the expiry of the lease period, the Collector had extended the term of the lease in favour of the petitioner Phalgu Dutt to twenty years. The extension in the lease was granted by two orders of the Collector dated 23rd and 29th of February, 1956, both passed on the application of the petitioner and without notice to the owners who are the four respondents in the present petition Smt. Pushpa Wanti, Tara Chand, Dina Nath and Jagdish Kumar. When the period of lease expired these respondents applied on 14th and 24th of March 1958 for restoration of the lands belonging to them. It appears that these respondents own only about 46 acres out of the total of 330 acres which had been leased to the petitioner Phalgu Dutt. The Collector passed two separate orders on 7th and 14th of April 1958 declining to restore the lands as the lease in respect of them had already been extended by the earlier orders of February, 1956. Thereafter the parties went in appeal to the Commissioner of Ambala Division, who passed an order on 6th of August 1958 remanding the matter for a re-decision by the Collector. Thereafter the Collector on 21-2-1959 made an order in favour of the present respondents after considering the points which had been raised in their petitions. The Collector observed that the respondents, Pushpa Wanti, Tara Chand, Dina Nath and Jagdish Kumar were displaced persons and small land holders. Phalgu Dutt was not cultivating himself the major portion of the leased land belonging to the respondents. I gather from this order that the Collector taking into account the economic position of the respondents and the sub-tenancy which does not appear to have been denied made the order restoring the lands to the respondents. With regard to the remaining land the lease was to subsist for twenty years as previously directed. This order was made by the Collector after having heard the parties concerned who had been afforded in opportunity of adducing evidence in respect of their respective claims.

3. A revision petition was again preferred before the Commissioner of Ambala Division who upheld the order of the Collector. An objection was raised before the Commissioner that the order passed by the Collector on 21-2-1959 was without jurisdiction. As this is one of the principal grounds on which the jurisdiction under Art. 227 is invoked, I may briefly set out what the objection is. As the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act stood in February, 1956, the decision by the Collector on any matter under the Act was final, vide sub-s. (1) of S. 14. An amendment was made in the Act by Punjab Act No. 39 of 1956 on 25-10-1956 empowering the Commissioner of a Division on his own motion or an application made to him to call for the records of.

"any proceedings which are pending before or have been disposed of by the Collector for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings........".

It was contended before the Commissioner that the order of the Collector, refusing the grant of extension of the lease having bee