1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9323/2007 {Parsaram Versus State of Rajasthan & Others} Date of Order :: 11th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Rajeev Surana for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of entry in the revenue record pleading therein that he is in possession of land in dispute, therefore, he may be declared as khatedar of the land in dispute. The trial court i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Danta Ram Garh dismissed the suit observing that from the plaintiff's evidence, it is clear that land in question was Charagah land and as per Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the same could not have been allotted or regularised in favour of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred before Revenue Appellate Authority, who vide its order dated 22nd April, 2 2006 recorded a finding that the so-called possession of the petitioner in the capacity of trespasser appears to be on 10 biswa of land and so far as other part is concerned which has been entered in the revenue record as Charagah land, the petitioner has no right to challenge the entry made in the revenue record and consequently remitted the case back to the lower court to decide the matter afresh. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, a second appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Board but the same was also dismissed vide their order dated 14th September, 2007. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he was in possession of land in dispute for last more than 50 years, therefore, the entire land should have been regularized in his name whereas the Revenue Appellate Authority remitted the case back to lower court for fresh consideration and passing fresh order in respect of 10 biswa of land, which is said to be in his possession. He contended that the Revenue Appellate Authority committed an illegality in restricting his claim only in respect of 10 biswa of land in place of entire 3 land. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the courts below. All the three courts below have observed that earlier the land in dispute was Sivai Chak land i.e. Government land which was later-on recorded as a pasture land during settlement proceedings. The petitioner never remained as recorded tenant of the land in dispute. So far as his possession over the land in dispute is concerned, the Revenue Appellate Authority has examined the revenue record and has observed that his possession in the capacity of trespasser has been found to be on 10 biswa land and consequently the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration and to pass fresh order in accordance with law. The Revenue Board further examined the matter and has observed that the khatedari rights can not be conferred on the petitioner as he was not in possession in the year 1955 when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the courts below so as to interfere with the same. 4 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Versus Laxmibai R. Tarte and another {AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297} held that the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings 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. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Versus Mohd. Mustaqim {AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38} held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 9. In view of above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. 5 DK