1. This revision petition is under Section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950), and seeks reversal of the order by the Collector in exercise of his appellate authority, whereby the opposite party has been held as protected tenants of the entire agricultural plots, bearing Survey Nos. 24, 25 and 28 situated in village Gomakunda, Nagarkurnool.
2. The advocate of the petitioner has not based his argument on absence of jurisdiction either in the original or the appellate authority, nor does he complain of the failure to exercise jurisdiction. Therefore, the short issue in the revision petition is whether the original or an appellate authority in following the procedure or passing the order has acted illegally or with material irregularity.
3. The facts giving rise to the revision petition are not complicated. Both the parties to the revision petition had applied to the original authority for being recorded as protected tenants under Section 34 of the Act, and that authority had declared both the parties to be such tenants of half share in the Survey Numbers. The revision petitioner did not appeal, but the opposite party did, and the Collector has varied the order holding that on the evidence, oral and documentary, as well as on the pahanis, the opposite party alone was the protected tenant.
4. It was pressed before me that the lower court has erred in relying on the certified copies of the three pahanis, without calling for the original, particularly when the original authority has found the documents not to be free from suspicion. Assuming the contention is correct, there is still oral and documentary evidence in the case to support the finding of the appellate authority. It is then argued that the several documents as well as the oral evidence do not justify the finding of the appellate authority, and therefore the decision is legally incorrect as well as factually erroneous. Against the argument, there is the cogent reason that the errors in the main decisions are not covered by illegality or irregularity of procedure and the error to justify interference must be in the formality which the law prescribes to be complied with. In connection with Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, Bose, J. has observed in the referring order of Narayan Sonaji Sagne v. Sheshrao Vithoba A.I.R 1948 Nag. 258 that errors of law and fact in the decision are not covered of it and reference was made by the Supreme Court in Keshardeo v. Radhakishen 1952 S.C.J 633 , (1953) I M.L.J 100 , A.I.R 1953 S.C 23, to the aforesaid order. It is true that the aforesaid observations were made in connection with Section 115(c), Civil Procedure Code, but I think the position of Section 91(c) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act is not different. The words “in following the procedure or passing the order” in Section 91(c) more clearly indicate that illegality or material irregularity must be of procedure and not of the main decision. Moreover, if the words were to be construed otherwise, it would follow that revision petitions would be treated as appeals and all questions of law and facts in the main decisions would be gone into by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 91. That is not the intention of the legislature. Having given my best attention to the argument, I am convinced that the error covered by Section 91(c) is of procedure followed by courts and not error of decision. It, therefore, follows that on the assumption of there being an error in the decision of the appellate court, it is not open to correction in exercise of revisory powers of this Court, under Section 91. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with costs.
Ch. R.
5. Petition dismissed.