IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Pemi Chand & Others Vs. Board of Revenue Ajmer & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.3237/2007) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: February 13, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Amit Jindal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Anant Bhandari, Dy.G.A. for the State. Per Court: The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6-12-99, passed by Sub Divisional Officer Keshorai Patan (`SDO' for short), whereby learned SDO dismissed the suit filed by petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction under section 88 and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955. He has also challenged the order dated 22-6- 2000, passed by Revenue Appellate Authority Kota (`RAA' for short), whereby the order dated 6-12-99 was upheld. He has also challenged the order dated 14-3-2002 passed by the Board of Revenue (`the Board' for short), whereby the Board had upheld the order dated 22-6-2000. Lastly, he has challenged the order dated 8- 11-2006, passed by the Board, whereby the revision petition was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners' father, Jagannath was in possession of land bearing khasra No.173 measuring 7 bighas and 10 biswas for over 50 years. After the settlement proceedings were completed, new khasra numbers were allotted as 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 67 and 68. However, while the revenue authorities entered the name of Jagannath as Khatedar of khasra Nos. 46, 52, 53 and 54 remaining khasra No.45, 67 and 68 were entered as “Siwai Chak”. Therefore, Jagannath filed a suit before the SDO, wherein he claimed that he should be declared as khatedar of khasra Nos.45, 67 and 68 as well. Vide order dated 6-12-99, the said suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, Jagannath filed a first appeal before the RAA. But vide order dated 22-6-2000, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, Jagannath filed a second appeal before the Board. However, vide order dated 14-3-2002 the second appeal was also dismissed. Hereinafter, Jagannath filed a review petition before the Board. During pendency of review petition, since Jagannath expired, vide order dated 27-10-2006, the petitioners were brought as his legal representatives . However, the Board vide order dated 8-11-2006 dismissed the review petition. Hence this petition before this court. 3. Mr. Jindal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that all the courts below have overlooked the documents available on record, which clearly shows that old khasra No.173 was changed into different numbers after the settlement proceedings were over. All impugned orders deserve to be set aside, for no proper reason has been given to dismiss the suit, appeal, second appeal and review petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. A perusal of impugned orders clearly reveals that the reason given by the different fora is that according to Jagannath himself prior to settlement proceedings he had owned 3 bighas of land in khasra No.173. After the settlement, he was declared khatedar of land measuring 3 bighas 16 biswas. According to the SDO and the Board the petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that he was khatedar of khasra Nos.45, 67 and 68. Thus, his plea was rejected. Hence, the impugned orders do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. 6. Moreover, in Shamshad Ahmad Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj [(2008)9 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently explained the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and 227 as under:- “Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.” 7. Thus, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited one. Since there is no perverse judicial finding on a questions of fact by the three different forums, this court cannot interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merit. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. S. CHAUHAN) J. arn