These are all connected revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the common respondent Khetsingh against the order passed in appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, dated the 20th April, 1962. Since these revisions raise a common point of law for decision, therefore this one judgment disposes of all these applications. . Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent Khetsingh claiming himself to be a khatedar tenant filed an application under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act claiming compensation for the khatedari rights acquired by the petitioners as sub-tenants under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act over his Khatedari holdings. The trial Court accepted the application and granted the compensation and the first appellate court confirmed the decision taken by the trial Court, the Asstt. Collector. It is against these impugned orders that the present petitioners have come up in revision before me. Shri Chaturbhuj Sharma on behalf of the petitioners contended that the respondent was the Ex. Jagirdar of these holdings in dispute and he had already received compensation for the resumption of his jagir land and now asking for compensation of the khatedari land, he would be obtaining compensation twice for the same land. He further contended that the respondent was not the khatedar of the holding in question, but was only a Jagirdar of that land. The counsel Shri Dhonkalsingh on behalf of the respondents replied by saying that the respondent no doubt was a jagirdar and as such he obtained his compensation for the resumption of his jagir land but there is nothing to prevent him from receiving payment of compensation in his capacity as a khatedar of which the petitioners are admittedly sub-tenants. The counsel urged that he is a recorded sub-tenant of the holding and this Court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the record. He further argued that the petitioners before the Asstt. Collector have already filed applications admitting themselves to be sub-tenants and praying for payment of compensation by instalments. There was no material irregularity in the decision of these concurrent findings of the two courts below and no revision could possibility lie against such order. In support he cited R.R.D. 1957 page 271, R.R.D. 1953 page 196 and R.I.R. 1947 P.G. page 14b. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. There was no material irregularity in the decision of these concurrent findings of the two courts below and no revision could possibility lie against such order. In support he cited R.R.D. 1957 page 271, R.R.D. 1953 page 196 and R.I.R. 1947 P.G. page 14b. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. There is no doubt that the finding of the two Courts below is concurrent on the question of fact that the petitioners are the sub-tenants and the respon-dent is a khatedar tenant. The Courts which passed the impugned orders nave also the jurisdiction to do so and this jurisdiction has not been questioned by the petitioners counsel at any time. In view of this concurrent finding of fact there is no scope for this Court to interfere in revision with regard to the finding of the facts and the relationship of the khatedar tenants and sub-tenants. The question whether the subordinate Courts committed any illegality that it pass an order in breach of any provision of law or acted with some material irregularity, no case of this kind has been made out by the counsel for the petitioner. The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he had already obtained compensation for his jagir land has no bearing on this case as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondent. It is possible for an estate holder to have two capacities one as an estate holder for which he could be entitled to the payment of compensation under the Jagirs Act, 1952 and the other as a khatedar or khudkasht holder of the land for which he is entitled to payment of compensation u/s. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act if sub-tenants acquire khatedari rights. Thus these two provisions are quite separate and covered by different Acts and the payment of compensation in one does not debar a person from the entitlement to compensation under the other Act. In this case the concurrent finding of the courts below that me respondent was entitled to the payment of compensation as khatedar tenant remains unchallenged. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that before resumption the petitioner could not be a khatedar holder in his own jagir. He could at the most be a khudkasht holder. In this case the concurrent finding of the courts below that me respondent was entitled to the payment of compensation as khatedar tenant remains unchallenged. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that before resumption the petitioner could not be a khatedar holder in his own jagir. He could at the most be a khudkasht holder. The counsel for the respondents only explanation was that under the Bikaner Tenancy and Revenue Laws, a Jagirdar or a estate holders khudkasht lands were always recorded as khatedan lands in the settlement operations and the term khudkasht hawala of sir was never invoked under that law of the State. In fact the land in dispute was obtained by the respondent from his tikayat as stated in his statement before the trial court by way of maintenance and he was recorded as a khatedar in lieu of khudkasht. I have also tried to examine the Bikaner State Revenue and Tenancy Laws but I do not find mention of the term khudkasht to indicate the status of the estate holder over his land cultivated per-sonally by him prior to resumption. It therefore, appears that the word khatedan with reference to an estate holder has been used as a synonym to khudkasht in the old Bikaner State Laws. Thus there is no substance in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and all these revision petitions must fail and are accordingly rejected.