Article 227 permits correction of jurisdictional error when an appellate court overlooks documents on record.

The petitioner claimed to have purchased 11 decimals of land in Plot No. 84, Khata No. 90, at Saraidhela, and relied on a registered sale deed, mutation and revenue records, and a building-map sanction

BCCL maintained that the disputed land had been acquired in Bhu Arjan Case No. 7/65/66 and that the petitioner had encroached upon it

After the Estate Officer ordered against the petitioner, the Principal District Judge dismissed his appeal, stating that he had filed no documents

The petitioner challenged that appellate order under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the appellate court committed an error amenable to correction under Article 227 by finding that the petitioner had filed no documents, despite the Estate Officer’s record noting those documents

2. Whether the dispute over the parties’ competing claims to 11 decimals in Plot No. 84 required reconsideration of the appeal, including possible measurement of the land

Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority; it does not give litigants a right to appeal or permit correction of every wrong decision. Intervention is warranted where an error involves grave dereliction of duty or abuse of power resulting in grave injustice (*Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir*, (2002) 1 SCC 319)

A finding may be corrected under Article 227 where the court asks the wrong question or approaches it improperly, and failure to make necessary findings supporting an order may constitute jurisdictional error (*Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh*, AIR 2006 SC 1474)

The Estate Officer’s order recorded documents relied on by the petitioner, but the appellate court stated that no documents had been filed. The High Court treated that discrepancy as an apparent error on the record and found that the appellate court had overlooked material relevant to the petitioner’s claim

Because both parties claimed 11 decimals in Plot No. 84, and BCCL did not claim to have acquired the entire plot, the competing claims required proper consideration; the court observed that measurement could be necessary to reach a correct finding

The appellate court’s failure to consider the documents therefore warranted supervisory correction.

The appellate court may, if necessary, have the land measured by the competent State authority in the presence of both parties

The petition was allowed and disposed of on those terms