IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10252/2008 {Madan Lal & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others} Date of Order :: 22nd September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Rajeev Surana for the petitioners Mr. Manu Bhargava for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Bhargava appears for the contesting respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration in respect of land in dispute alongwith an application for temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which was dismissed by the Court of S.D.O, Amer (Headquarters), Jaipur. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred but the same was also dismissed by Revenue Appellate Authority. Thereafter revision petition was preferred but Revenue Board also dismissed the same. The petitioner has, therefore, lost in all three courts. 4. I have examined the impugned orders passed by all the three courts below in the light of submissions of learned counsel for the -2- parties. The courts below have observed that petitioners' claim is based on entry in revenue record in Samvat year 2009 i.e. corresponding year 1952, whereas the names of respondents have been shown in the revenue records since 2010 onwards i.e. 1953 onwards. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force in 1955 and there is a finding of all the three courts below that the respondents' name was mentioned in the revenue record when Tenancy Act came into force. In these circumstances, all the three courts below have recorded a finding in respect of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the defendants- respondents and against the plaintiff- petitioners. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders so as to interfere with the same. 5. 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 -3- 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. 6. 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. 7. In view of above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK