JUDGMENT 1. - Smt. Swaroopli Widow of Nanda Chamar (respondent No. 2) filed a suit against petitioner Bhar Mal under Section 180 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Actin the Court of the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh (district Churu) with respect to 24 Bighas 13 Biswas of land situated in old Khasra No. 109 (New Khasra No. 280 of 13 Bighas 12 Biswas and New Khasra No. 342 of 10 Bighas) situated in Sankhaltal tehsil Rajgarh district Churu. The suit was filed on the ground that she is the Khatedar of this land and gave this land for cultivation to Bhar Mal, who is the sub-tenant. Bhar Mal is cultivating the land on her behalf and the land has been given to him on yearly basis for cultivation. It was, also, prayed that Bhar Mal is, now, not vacating the land in question and, therefore, he may be evicted. This suit was opposed by defendant-petitioner Bhar Mal. The stand taken by Bhar Mal in the written statement is that the land belongs to Nanda Chamar and the possession of the land was handed-over to him by Nanda in Samvat Year 2011; Swaroopli (the plaintiff) is not the widow of deceased Nanda Chamar but she is the wife of Heera Chamar, and has no concern with the land in question. It was, also, stated that after coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, he became the Khatedar of this land. Petitioner Bhar Mal, also, filed a suit for declaration with respect to this very land in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh and it was prayed therein that since on the date of coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act he was in the possession over the land in question as the sub-tenant, therefore, he may be declared as the Khatedar with respect to this land. Both these suits were clubbed and the learned Assistant Collector, Rajgarh, by his judgment dated 16.7.75 dismissed the suit filed by Bhar Mal but decree the suit filed by Smt. Swaroopli and directed that petitioner Bhar Mal may be evicted from the land in question. Dissatisfied with the decree and judgment dated 16.7.75, passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Rajgarh, petitioner Bhar Mal preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, by its judgment dated 31.3.78 dismissed both the appeals filed by Bhar Mal. Dissatisfied with the decree and judgment dated 16.7.75, passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Rajgarh, petitioner Bhar Mal preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, by its judgment dated 31.3.78 dismissed both the appeals filed by Bhar Mal. The petitioner (Bhar Mal) remained satisfied with the dismissal of the appeal by which the suit for declaration, filed by him, was dismissed and preferred the appeal before the Board of Revenue only against the judgment dated 31.3.78 by which the appeal filed by him against the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh, decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff - respondent No. 2 Smt. Swaroopli. The Board of Revenue, by its judgment dated 12.7.75, dismissed the appeal filed by appellant-petitioner Bhar Mal. It is against this judgment dated 12.7.75, passed by the Board of Revenue that petitioner Bhar Mal has preferred this writ petition. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that (i) Nand Chamar died in Samvat Year 2010 and Smt. Swaroopli, as per the Personal Law of the Parties, could not have acquired the Khatedari right and her name has wrongly been entered in the Revenue Records as the Khatedar tenant with respect to the land in question; (ii) there is a great divergence between the pleadings and the proof offered by Smt. Swaroopli in support of her case and, therefore, the suit, filed by her, should not have been decreed; (iii) Smt. Swaroopli was not the widow of Nanda Chamar and the petitioner never accepted Smt. Swaroopli as his land-lady-in-Chief; (iv) the Board of Revenue, on the basis of the stand taken by the petitioner, has made-up a new case in favour of plaintiff Smt. Swaroopli and committed an error in decreeing the suit against the petitioner; (v) though the Board of Revenue gave a specific finding that Smt. Swaroopli failed to prove that she is the Khatedar tendant of the disputed land but still the Board of Revenue decreed the suit filed by her though.it could not have been decree in view of the provisions of Section 180 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act; (vi) Smt. Swaroopli was not entitled for inheritance in the disputed land in view of the Personal Law of the Parties existed on 15.10.1955 and the petitioner never paid any rent to her; and (vii) inconsistent stands have been taken by Sint. Swaroopli, which deprived the petitioner to defend his case properly as he was not knowing what specific plea he had to meet. Learned counsel for respondent Smt. Swaroopli as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, have supported the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The name of Smt. Swaroopli has been entered ;n the Revenue Record as the Khatedar tenant in Samvat Year 2010 after the death of Nanda Chamar, which continued thereafter. The petitioner has been shown as the sub-tenant of Smt. Swaroopli in the Revenue Record for some years. It has, also, been proved from the evidence produced by Smt. Swaroopli that she is the widow of deceased Nanda Chamar. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue have considered and discussed the evidence, relating to these facts and rightly came to the conclusion that Smt. Swaroopli is the widow of deceased Nanda Chamar and her name has rightly been entered in the revenue record as the Khatedar tenant with respect to the land which was held by deceased Nanda Chamar. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue have given a specific finding to this effect. This finding is a finding of fact and based on some evidence and it does not require any interference. In view of the specific findings given by the Board of Revenue that the name of Smt. Swaroopli has been entered as the Khatedar of the land in question, the suit filed by her was maintainable and was rightly decreed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and no illegality has been committed either by the Revenue Appellate Authority or the Board of Revenue in decreeing the suit filed by Smt. Swaroopli. The petitioner, also, filed a suit for declaration with respect to this very land and that suit, filed by him for declaration, was dismissed. The appeal against that judgment, filed by petitioner Bhar Mal, was, also, dismissed. The petitioner rest contended with the dismissal of the suit filed by him and the judgment passed in the suit filed by him has become final. The appeal against that judgment, filed by petitioner Bhar Mal, was, also, dismissed. The petitioner rest contended with the dismissal of the suit filed by him and the judgment passed in the suit filed by him has become final. In view of the finding that Smt. Swaroopli is the Khatedar of the land in question and her name has rightly been entered in the Revenue Record as the Khatedar tenant and the suit filed by her is maintainable and the same was rightly decreed by the learned Court below, the other grounds raised by the petitioner are of no avail to him because he cannot challenge the succession of Khatedari right of Smt. Nanda Chamar by Smt. Swaroopli as the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge it.In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Writ rejected. *******