DIXIT, MEMBER — This revision has been filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment dated 30.10.2002 of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. (2). The short point in this revision is that the lower Court made an order of remand for deciding the pending issues before the Trial Court. While making the order of remand the Court made an observation that the Trial Court should decide the issue in the light of a compromise deed entered among the parties. (3). On perusal of the record, however, it was made out that the compromise deed itself was seriously disputed. The Honble High Court of Rajasthan in a similar case has observed (2001 RBJ 363 Lrs. Ganga Ram vs. State of Rajasthan) that once the Board of Revenue remands a matter, it is not proper on the part of the Board of Revenue to make observations. The Rajasthan High Court felt that the very purpose of remanding case to subordinate authority would stand frustrated because no authority would dare to take a different view of the matter, once there is a clear cut finding recorded by the High Court. (4). In the impugned order also the prayer was for correcting this error of law. Under the scope of review it is permissible to correct patent error of law as laid down in the case AIR 1961 SC 970 (Shri Ambika Mills Co. vs. S.B. Bhatt) in the following terms: Constitution of India, Article 226 - Certiorari, writ of - When to be issued - Error apparent on the face of record - What amounts to - Wrong interpretation of agreement by lower tribunal. "Writ of certiorari can be issued not only in cases of illegal exercises of jurisdiction but also to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Errors of fact, though they may be apparent on the face of the record, cannot be corrected. Though it cannot be easy to lay down an unfailing test of general application it is usually not difficult to decide whether the impugned error of law is apparent on the face of record or not." 5. Though the above ruling is in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the principles are equally applicable insofar as the definition of the term error apparent on the face of record is concerned. 6. Though the above ruling is in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the principles are equally applicable insofar as the definition of the term error apparent on the face of record is concerned. 6. It should have been clear that making a finding while remanding the case to the Trial Court would to seriously prejudice the Trial Court and this was beyond the scope of remand. It was a serious error of law, which is liable to be corrected in review. As the learned lower Court has failed to do this and committed an illegality, I find it proper to set aside the observations made in the order of first appeal dated 7.8.2000. The matter would be heard by the Trial Court from the inception and de novo. The rest of the judgment as regards remanding the matter would stand. 7. Pronounced in the open Court.