CW 4978/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4978/2010 Komal Prasad Vs. The Board of Revenue, Raj, Ajmer & Ors. Date Of Order :: 07/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. K.K. Mehrishi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Harsh Kulshreshtha, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant assailing the order dt.14.9.06 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bonli, Sawaimadhopur and so also the orders passed by Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue affirming the finding of fact recorded by the learned authority. Respondent-5 filed application u/s. 88 & 188 of the Tenancy Act in regard to khasra no.244 rakba 1 bigha 16 biswas, for declaration, correction of entries and permanent injunction and documentary evidence in support thereof was also placed by both the parties on record, which has been referred to by the learned first authority i.e. SDO, in the order impugned and after due appreciation of the material the authority finally observed that plaintiff, respondent herein, was entitled for declaration of his khatedaries rights and it was observed as under :- "उƠ ǒववेचना के पǐरूे¢य मɅ दावा वादȣ ǔखलाफ ूितवादȣ नं०1 िनàन ूकार ःवीकार Ǒकया जाकर CW 4978/10 (2) Ǒडबȧ Ǒकया जाता है - 1. वादȣ को आराजी खसरा न०244 रकबा 1बीधा 16 ǒबःवा वाके माम ǒबÍछदौना का खातेदार काँ तकार ु घोǒषत Ǒकया जाता है तदनुसार ूितवादȣ न०1 का नाम हजफ कर वादȣ का नाम राजःव ǐरकाड[ मɅ इÛिाज दǾःत Ǒकया जावे ु | 2. ूितवादȣ नं०1को जǐरये ःथाई िनषेधा£ा से पाबÛद Ǒकया जाता है Ǒक उƠ आराजी मɅ वादȣ के कÞजे काँत मɅ ू× य¢ व अू×य¢ Ǿप से बाधा न डालɅ|" It will be relevant to mention that documentary evidence and affidavits deposed by the parties were duly appreciated and finally the authority accepted the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff vide its order dt.14.9.06, against which petitioner preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and so also before the Board of Revenue and both of them affirmed the finding of fact recorded by the learned authority, on the appeal being rejected at both the stages. Counsel submits that cogent material including documentary evidence was placed on record but the same has been misread at all the three stages by the authorities and in these circumstances the finding which has been recorded is wholly perverse and not supported by any material on record, which require interference by this Court. After hearing counsel for petitioner in the opinion of this Court, the first CW 4978/10 (3) authority has appreciated the material placed by the parties on record and assigned cogent reasons in support thereof while upholding the claim of the respondent-plaintiff, which has been affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue and what has been contended being a concurrent finding of fact and this Court is not sitting as Court of Appeal to re-appreciate the finding recorded under its limited scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds no perversity in the finding which may call for interference. Consequently, instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/- 4978cw10May7Fnl.doc