- (1.) THIS is an application by one Sugan of village Chahal of Tehsil Bayana for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Assistant Collector, Bayana dated the 5th July, 1950 and the Rajasthan Revenue Board dated the 30th November, 1950.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the application are set forth as below : - THE petitioner Sugan is a landlord of certain land in village Chahal. THE opposite party Johri (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) brought a suit in the court of the Tehsildar, Bayana for a declaration that he was an occupancy tenant of a half share in 16 plots of land measuring 18 bighas and 18 biswas in the applicant's zamindari. THE Tehsildar dismissed the suit. THE Assistant Collector, Bayana however, on appeal, reversed the decree of the first court by the judgment dated the 5th July, 1950 and decreed the plaintiff's suit. THE applicant went in second appeal to the Revenue Board where by the judgment dated the 30th November, 1950 the appeal was dismissed and the decree of the Assistant Collector was confirmed. Against the judgment of the Assistant Collector, Bayana, and the Rajasthan Revenue Board this application has been filed. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that under sec. 131 of Bharatpur Land Revenue Code a tenant could not acquire occupancy rights unless he had cultivated the land continuously for a period of 12 years before the suit. The Revenue Board has not held definitely that the plaintiff had held the land in dispute as a tenant continuously for 12 years before the suit, but in computing the period of 12 years has included certain period occurring after the suit. The Board of Revenue therefore assumed jurisdiction wrongly and consequently its judgment was liable to be vacated on a writ of certiorari. On behalf of the opposite party it has been argued that it is wrong to say that either the Assistant Collector or the Board of Revenue assumed wrong jurisdiction in the case. The objections relating to jurisdiction must relate either to the person, the place, or the character of the suit. If a court has competence in these respects it may exercise jurisdiction and does exercise it whether correctly or erroneously in dealing judicially with a case placed before it. The Assistant Collector and the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction in the case under the provisions of Bharatpur Land Revenue Code. Even assuming that they have taken a wrong view of law in holding that 12 years [period requisite for the acquisition of occupancy rights had been completed it would be no ground for challenging the judgment of the two revenue counts under sec. 226 of the Constitution of India. It is quite clear that the Revenue Courts in question had perfect jurisdiction in the case under s. 30 (2) (c) of the Bharatpur Land Revenue Code. A' suit for establishment of and setting aside occupancy rights has been made exclusively triable by Revenue Courts under sec. 32 (c) of the Bharatpur Land Revenue Code. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Revenue Court of Tehsildar, Bayana, and the applicants have not shown that they ever took any objection to it on the ground of jurisdiction. It cannot therefore be said that the courts in question wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the case. The contention of the learned counsel for applicant amounts to this that the Assistant Collector and the Board of Revenue have taken a wrong view of law in including certain period after the suit in requisite period of 12 years. First of all the applicant has not filed a copy of the judgment of the Assistant Collector. It cannot therefore be said that the Assistant Collector included certain period after the suit in the prescribed period for the acquisition of occupancy lands. From the judgment of the Board of Revenue it appears that the Assistant Collector found it as a fact that 12 years had been completed and the Board found itself unable under sec. 100 C. P. C. to interfere with such a finding of fact. But even supposing that certain period after the suit had been included in computing the requisite period it at the most amounts to an error in law. This court while exercising its functions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit as a court of appeal and is not entitled to correct any and every error which might have been committed by the courts or tribunals whose judgments are questioned. The applicant has failed to show that the two Revenue Courts either acted beyond their jurisdiction or failed to exercise their jurisdiction. No case for issue of a writ of certiorari has been made out. The application is dismissed with costs. The Advocate's fee for the opposite party is assessed at Rs. 32/ -. . ;