Honble SHETHNA, J.–Mr. Bhati is directed to accept the notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4, which he has accepted and appeared for them. (2). The petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 23.8.88 (Annex.5) passed by the Board of Revenue by which the revision petition filed by the State through Tehsildar against the order dated 12.4.1979 (Annex.4) passed by the revenue appellate authority was allowed. (3). The petitioners own a land admeasuring 175 ``Hath x 175 ``Hath at village Mandavla for which patta was issued in Samvat year 2001 i.e. in 1949 by the then Jagirdar. The Tehsildar, Jalore issued a notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act against Shri Borilal, father of petitioners stating that they encroached upon the Government land and called upon to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the said land. Reply to the notice was given by Shri Borilal. After considering the same Tehsildar passed an order dt. 16.3.88 and held that patta was genuine but the land shown in patta was 175 x 175 ``hath i.e. only 2 Bigha, where as Borilal was in possesion of 5 Bighas and 17 Biswa of land, therefore, ordered to take possession of 3.17 Bigha of land. He also ordered to pay 50 times damages which comes to Rs.393.50. Borilal filed appeal against that order before the Collector, Jalore but the same was dismissed on 21.8.78 (Annexure-3). Further appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority by Borilal which was allowed by Revenue Appellate Authority on 12.4.79 (Annexure-4). It was held that one ``hath equal to 21 inches equal to 5 bigha & 5 Biswa. It was further held that there is an encroachment on only 12 biswa of land which could be regularised and accordingly the authority was directed to regularise the excess land of 12 Biswa. Aggrieved by that, State filed revision petition through Tehsildar before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dt. 23.8.88 (Annexure-5) partly allowed the revision petition and held that 175 x 175 ``hath comes to about 4 Bighas of land and found that the petitioners encroached upon the Government Land of 1 Bighas and 17 Biswa, therefore, it ordered that petitioners be dispossessed from the excess land of 1 Bighas and 17 Biswa and proportionate damages be recovered from them. This order (Annexure-5) passed by the Board of Revenue is challenged in this petition. (4). Learned counsel Shri Chopra for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the Board of Revenue exceeded in its revisional jurisdiction. He submitted that the revisional powers should not be exercised lightly by the Board of Revenue. He submitted that the Board of Revenue has simply stated in its order that it did not agree with the findings recorded by Revenue Appellate Authority about the measurement of the land for which it has not assigned any reasons. He submitted that findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority cannot be interfered lightly by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. However, he fairly conceded that the Board of Revenue was right in observing that Revenue Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to order the authority to regularise the excess land. Shri Bhati Additional Government Advocate has tried to support the order (Anne- xure-5) passed by the Board of Revenue. He submitted that there was no jurisdictional error committed by the Board of Revenue while partly allowing the revision petition filed by the State. (5). Going through the order passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure-5) it clearly appears that the Board of Revenue has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. It may be that as a revisional authority the Board of Revenue may not agree with the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority but that itself is no ground for the Board of Revenue to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. For arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners were in possession of 5 bigha and 5 biswa the Revenue Appellate Authority gave solid reasons. Unfortunately, Board of Revenue has not tried to dislodge the reasoning given by the Revenue Appellate Authority or gave its own reasoning. In my opinion, there is a lot of substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Board of Revenue had exceeded in its jurisdiction and thereby committed jurisdictional error. (6). Mr. Chopra has rightly conceded that Revenue Appellate Authority had exceeded in its jurisdiction while passing order at Annexure-4 by which the authorities were directed to regularise the encroachment on Government land of 12 Biswa. (6). Mr. Chopra has rightly conceded that Revenue Appellate Authority had exceeded in its jurisdiction while passing order at Annexure-4 by which the authorities were directed to regularise the encroachment on Government land of 12 Biswa. There is no provision under which Revenue Appellate Authority could have issued such directions to the authority, at least that part of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was rightly set aside by the Board of Revenue in revision. (7). In view of the above discussion this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dt. 23.8.88 (Annexure-5) passed by the Board of Revenue holding that the possession of 1.17 Bigha of land be recovered from the petitioners is set aside and as held by the Revenue Appellate Authority it is declared that the petitioners have encroached upon only 12 Bigha of land which they shall leave to surrender. The petitioners shall hand over the possession of 12 Biswa of land to the authorities within three months from today. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no costs.