1. There is no infirmity in the order of the Board of Revenue. There is no defect of jurisdiction. Nor is there any error apparent of the face of the record.

2. The Board of Revenue has declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, of the ground that there is no illegality of impropriety in the order of the Additional Collector.

3. The Additional Collector, of a consideration of the evidence, has found that the defaulter Suraj Karan had an attachable interest in the lands in dispute. That being so, the Board was right in not interfering with the order of the Additional Collector in its revisional powers.

4. The contention that the finding of the learned Additional Collector is vitiated due to misreading of evidence, cannot be accepted. That is not a ground for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. These proceedings do not partake the nature of an appeal. The finding of the Additional Collector, being based of evidence, cannot therefore be interfered with.

5. The decision of the Board of Revenue in State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dan Singh - 1977 R.R.D. 233 and in State of Rajasthan v. Moola and others - 1977 R