Honble YADAV, J.–The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer dated 23.2.94 Annx.15 allowing the revision petition under Sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 19.11.87 Annx.13 to the writ petition, remanding the case to the trial Court. (2). Brief facts of the case are that Assistant Colonisation Commissioner allotted the land in question to the petitioner on payment of Rs. 50,500/- Against the allotment order dated 29.8.87, respondent Ganga Bishan filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, which was partly allowed and the case was remanded back on 19.11.87 vide Annx.13 to the writ petition. Respondent Ganga Bi- shan filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was allowed in toto and the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 19.11.87 Annx.13 to the writ petition was set aside. The allotment order dated 29.8.1987 passed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled without discussing anything with regard to his payment of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of allotment. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. (4). It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the order dated 7.6.83 passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhatargarh, it is apparent on the face of record that respondent Ganga Bishan was not held to be bona fide tenure holder, therefore, his application for permanent allotment of land was rejected. There is no material on record, which may lead to the conclusion that the order passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner dated 7.6.83 Annx.1 to the writ petition has been set aside in appeal. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue, Ajmer has ignored the order passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner dated 7.6.83 Annx.1 to the writ petition which has resulted into miscarriage of justice and fair play in the present case hence the impugned judgment dated 23.2.94 Annx.15 to the writ petition is liable to be set aside. (5). Learned counsel Mr. (5). Learned counsel Mr. A.K. Singh appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 opposed the aforesaid arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is urged by him that the present writ petition is concluded by finding of fact recorded by the Board of Revenue which is not assailable in the writ jurisdiction. It is also urged by him that in view of the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue that respondent Ganga Bishan was permanent allottee of the land in dispute therefore the subsequent allotment of land vide order dated 29.8.87 was rightly fo- und to be not tenable. (6). Learned counsel Mr. Hemant Choudhary appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan has adopted the arguments raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 Mr. A.K. Singh. (7). It is true that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts or Tribunals cha- llenged in writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 or under Art.227 of the Constitution of India are to be upheld provided such findings of fact are not found to be per verse or based on no evidence on record or such findings found to be recorded in ignorance of document (s), which if would have been taken into account the findings of fact would have been otherwise. It is made clear that three conditions mentioned hereinabove do not require to co-exist. The findings of fact recorded by the courts or tribunals are to be set aside if any one of the condition enumerated hereinabove is satisfied. (8). Let us examin the applicability of the aforesaid three conditions mentioned hereinabove to the findings of fact recorded by the Board of Revenue holding that the respondent Ganga Bishan was permanent allottee of the land in dispute, therefore, subsequent allotment dated 29.8.87 in favour of the petitioner is illegal. It goes without saying that the Board of Revenue while recording the aforesaid findings of fact has ignored the order dated 7.6.83 Annx.1 to the writ petition passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh rejecting the application of respondent Ganga Bishan for permanent allotment. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no material on record that the order dated 7.6.83 Annx.1 to the writ petition has been set aside in appeal. (9). It is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no material on record that the order dated 7.6.83 Annx.1 to the writ petition has been set aside in appeal. (9). In the premise of the aforesaid discussion, it is easily deducible that Board of Revenue while passing the order dated 23.2.94 Annx.15 to the writ petition has committed manifest error of law in holding that the land in dispute has been settled on permanent basis in favour of Ganga Bishan on 5.7.85 whereas it is proved from Annx.1 dated 7.6.83 that his application for permanent allotment of land has already been rejected. Thus, if the aforesaid document dated 7.6.83 Annx.1 would have been taken into account by the Board of Revenue then it would have not negatived the claim of the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid findings. In view of the docu- ment dated 7.6.83 Annx.1, the Board of Revenue has no legal justification either to negative the claim of the petitioner or to record the aforesaid findings. The aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside on the ground of ignorance of Annx.1 dated 7.6.83. (10). I am also of the view that if Annx.1 dated 7.6.83 is taken into account, the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Board of Revenue will become per verse and no prudent man can arrive on such a finding on which the Board of Revenue has arrived at in the present case. (11). In the present case, the respondents fail to demonstrate the Annx.1 dated 7.6.83 has been set aside in appeal, hence the findings of fact of the Board of Reve- nue to the effect that the land in dispute has been settled on permanent basis in favour of respondent Ganga Bishan on 5.7.85, therefore, the subsequent allotment in favour of the petitioner on 29.8.87 is illegal is held to be based on no evidence on record. (12). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 23.2.94 Annx.15 passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby quashed and the instant writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.11.87 Annx.13 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority remanding the case to the trial Court is hereby restored. (13). Both the parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh on 14.12.98. The order dated 19.11.87 Annx.13 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority remanding the case to the trial Court is hereby restored. (13). Both the parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh on 14.12.98. The Assistant Colonisation Commissio- ner, Chhattargarh is hereby directed to decide the controversy between the parties expeditiously within reasonable time.