JUDGMENT 1. - By these two writ petitions Nos. 1369/73 and 1926/73, the petitioners have challenged a consolidated order dated 18th June, 1973 of the Board of Revenue passed in appeals Nos. 141 and 142 of LRA/72, Jhunjhunu. 2. The petitioners in both these writ petitions are residents of village Thathawadi, Tehsil Khetri, district Jhunjhunu. A plot of land measuring 7 bighas 7 biswas in khasra No. 540 was recorded as gair mumkin Joharin the revenue records. The Collector, Jhunjhunu by his order dated 9th July, 1971 directed that 14 Bighas 11 biswas of land including the aforesaid plot of land, may be classified as barani soyam and may be allotted to landless persons. By his order dated 14th July, 1971, the Collector Jhunjhunu, allotted the aforesaid plot of land in khasra No. 540 to Sultan Singh. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the Collector, Jhunjhunu the petitioner filed separate appeals which were allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The said orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority were reversed in appeal by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 18th June, 1973 and as a result, the orders passed by the Collector were restored. Writ petition No. 1926/73 relates to the order dated 9th July, 1973 with regard to conversion of land and writ petition No. 1369/73 relates to the order dated 14th July, 73 with regard to allotment of the said land. 3. From the order of the Board of Revenue, it appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded before the Board of Revenue that his clients have no objection to the allotment of the land made in favour of respondent No. 6. Learned Members of the Board of Revenue have observed twice in the judgment that the allotment made in favour of Sultan Singh was not challenged by the petitioners. We have no reason to hold that the observations in the impugned order of the Board of Revenue were wrongly made. Where a statement appears in the judgment of court that a particular thing happened or did not happen before it, it ought not ordinarily be permitted to be challenged by a party unless both the parties to the litigation agree that the statement is wrong, or the court itself admits that the statement is erroneous. Where a statement appears in the judgment of court that a particular thing happened or did not happen before it, it ought not ordinarily be permitted to be challenged by a party unless both the parties to the litigation agree that the statement is wrong, or the court itself admits that the statement is erroneous. The remedy of a party aggrieved is by way of review (See AIR 1964 SC 377 -Bank of Bihar v. Mahabir Lal & Ors.). It will not be out of place to mention here that if the petitioners really wanted to contest this point before this court, they would have at least filed the affidavit of the lawyer who argued the case before the Board of Revenue. In view of the above consensual statement made by their counsel before the Board of Revenue, it was not open to the petitioners to challenge the order of allotment of the land in dispute by way of writ petition before this court. 4. As regards the authority of the Collector to convert the land in dispute in khasra No. 540 and other land from gair mumkin Johar to Barani soyam, it would suffice to say that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge such conversion of land. There is no dispute on the point between the parties that the common lands in the village vest in the Gram Panchayat as provided by section 88 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act subject to the restrictions mentioned in the said Act. The petitioners do not claim any proprietary rights or khatedari rights in the land in dispute. Their only grievance is that as a result of the conversion the area of the grazing land meant for the village, has been reduced. The question whether the petitioners were grazing their cattle or not on the land in dispute is a disputed question of fact inasmuch as in the reply to the writ petition filed by the State Govt., it has been denied that the petitioners had been grazing their cattle in khasra No. 540. The reply filed by the State is accompanied by an affidavit given by the Sub-divisional Officer of the concerned area, who is expected to know the existing position of the land. The entries in the revenue records also do not show the disputed land as pasture land. The reply filed by the State is accompanied by an affidavit given by the Sub-divisional Officer of the concerned area, who is expected to know the existing position of the land. The entries in the revenue records also do not show the disputed land as pasture land. The petitioners have thus no locus standi to challenge the impugned order dated 9th July, 1971 passed by the Collector before the revenue authorities. 5. As such we find no error of law apparent on the face of the record which may justify interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The net result of the above discussion is that both the writ petitions are dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs. *******