// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4135/2008 Bharat Lal S/o Shri Ram Sharan Versus Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others AND 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4625/2008 Ram Singh s/o Shri Birbal Versus Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others Date of Order ::: 12.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri R.S. Purohit and Shri Ajay Gupta, Counsel for petitioner in both the writ petitions #### By the Court:- Both the writ petitions involve identical question of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. The nature of land, in dispute, was changed from pasture to 'sewai chuk' by the District Collector, Sikar, vide order dated 2nd November, 2007, and thereafter it was allotted to the respondent No.5. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 31st // 2 // January, 2008. Thereafter second appeal, preferred before the Revenue Board, was also dismissed vide order dated 1st March, 2008. I have examined all the three orders passed by the concerned authorities in the light of submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and, after considering the same, I find that the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Revenue Board, both, have specifically observed that the nature of land was changed from pasture to 'sewai chuk' by the competent authority and only thereafter it was allotted to the respondent No.5. It has also been observed that the petitioner, who trespassed over the land, in dispute, was dispossessed on 25th September, 2007 before its conversion from pasture to 'sewai chuk'. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Revenue Board, both, have not found any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Collector, whereby the land was allotted to the respondent No.5. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders so as to interfere with the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte – AIR 1975 SC 1297, held that the High Court cannot, while // 3 // exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with finding of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re- appreciating it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim – AIR 1984 SC 38 , held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. In view of the above, there is no merit in both the petitions and the same are hereby dismissed in limine. Since two writ petitions have been decided by this common order, the Registry is directed to place one copy of the order in connected file. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//