JUDGMENT 1. There is no infirmity in the order of the Board of Revenue. There is no defect of jurisdiction. Nor is there any error apparent of the face of the record. 2. The Board of Revenue has declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, of the ground that there is no illegality of impropriety in the order of the Additional Collector. 3. The Additional Collector, of a consideration of the evidence, has found that the defaulter Suraj Karan had an attachable interest in the lands in dispute. That being so, the Board was right in not interfering with the order of the Additional Collector in its revisional powers. 4. The contention that the finding of the learned Additional Collector is vitiated due to misreading of evidence, cannot be accepted. That is not a ground for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. These proceedings do not partake the nature of an appeal. The finding of the Additional Collector, being based of evidence, cannot therefore be interfered with. 5. The decision of the Board of Revenue in State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dan Singh - 1977 R.R.D. 233 and in State of Rajasthan v. Moola and others - 1977 R.R.D. 95, are clearly distinguishable of facts. It is well settled that where an agricultural holding belongs to the father, the tenancy rights devolve of the children whether major of minor only of the death of their father. But that principle can have no application in a case like the present where the holding was ancestral in the hands of the father. 6. That apart, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary powers in a case like this where the recovery proceedings are in respect of a sum of Rs. 27,000/- and odd, defaulcated by Suraj Karan, who was a Patwari. The decision in Ganesha Ram v. Collector, Jalore - 1968 RLW 95 is distinguishable. There, the claim was against defaulcating Sarpanch for his failure to hand over the cash in hand as shown in the charge list to the new Sarpanch and the Court held that the claim does not fall within the expression "other dues" occurring in Section 256(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. There, the claim was against defaulcating Sarpanch for his failure to hand over the cash in hand as shown in the charge list to the new Sarpanch and the Court held that the claim does not fall within the expression "other dues" occurring in Section 256(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. We do not see the relevance of this decision to the facts of the present case where the recovery proceedings are in respect of Government money, defaulcated by the Patwari. Here, the contention that the recovery specifically falls within item No. 8 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 and therefore, Section 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. does not appear to have been raised before the Board of Revenue, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a new ground for the first time in these proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected summarily. *******