JUDGMENT 1. - The case of the petitioner in short is that non-petitioner No. 4 filed a suit for possession of land in question before the Assistant Collector Kota in which the petitioners were impleaded as defendants on the grounds inter-alia that in revenue village Raipura one garden namely; Fateh Bagh is situated in which the disputed lard measuring 24 Bighas and 16 Biswas is situated. It was averred in the suit that garden having fruit trees is in the name of one Pujari Ranchod Lal in the revenue record who left Kota on 12-6-1953 and since then the property is in possession of the Receivers appointed under the orders of District Judge, Kota. It was further averred in the suit that the garden where the temple is located was in possession of Pujari Ranchod Lal who during the life time of his father was cultivating the disputed land and also looking after the temple situated at garden (disputed). On 24-3-1948 the garden was given on contract for five years on behalf of the temple in pursuance of which the defendants (petitioners) deposited the leased amount as stipulated in the contract for user of the land in question and after expiry of five years, the term was extended by the State Govt. for one year and ever since then the defendants (petitioners) were in unauthorised occupation of the said garden as alleged in the suit. It was further averred averred in the suit that defendants were also not making the payment of contract amount. The plaintiff had further averred in the suit that defendants had without any express authority of the plaintiff cut the fruits and allowed defendant Nos. 2 to 5 (petitioner Nos. 2 to 5) to cultivate the land after damaging the land for which they were not authorised to do so. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for having his right to restore the possession of the property in dispute with costs from the defendants (petitioners). 2. In Written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the aforesaid averment of the plaintiff were denied by the defendants on the grounds inter-alia that in Fateh Bagh there were 7-8 trees of fruits i.e. Imli, 4-5 trees of Ren, 2 trees of Jamun, 1 tree of Kadam and some trees of dates. 2. In Written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the aforesaid averment of the plaintiff were denied by the defendants on the grounds inter-alia that in Fateh Bagh there were 7-8 trees of fruits i.e. Imli, 4-5 trees of Ren, 2 trees of Jamun, 1 tree of Kadam and some trees of dates. The Defendants in support of their case took plea that the said property was the personal property and in the Khatedari of Pujari Ranchod Lal land plaintiff consequently respondent No. 4 Bade Mathureshji Virajman Radhavilas had no legal right over the said property and from Samvat 2000 Pujarai Ranchod Lal gave this land for tenanted cultivation to the defendants (petitioners) and in the Patta also the names of the petitioners were recorded therein. It was further averred that land of the Fateh Bagh was not a grove land and was lying idle and they got it ready for cultivation. It was also mentioned that they were in cultivatory possession over the disputed land since 1955 and as such, they acquired Khatedari rights over the same. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Assistant Collector Kota framed 8 issues on which the parties led their respective evidence in support. The Assistant Collector Kota after recording the evidence led by both the parties, decreed the plaintiff's suit vide his judgment and order dated 22-12-1981. Against the order of the Assistant Collector Kota dated 22-12-1981, the defendants-petitioners filed appeal under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for short the "Act of 1955" before the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota who after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case as well as the legal position on the subject dismissed the appeal of the petitioners vide his order dated 13-10-1987 against which the petitioners preferred second appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The learned Members of the Board of Revenue vide its judgment and order dated 13-4-1997 dismissed their second appeal preferred by the petitioners against which they have come up before this Court by way of this writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the relevant documents on the record as well as the legal position on the subject. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the relevant documents on the record as well as the legal position on the subject. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal against the order of Assistant Collector Kota dated 22-12-1981 for possession over the land in dispute was dismissed by the Tribunal by its reasoned order dated 13-10-1987 keeping in view the provisions of Sections 177, 183 and 198 of the Act of 1955 which stipulate thus : "177. Ejectment for detrimental act or breach of condition - (1) A tenant shall, on the application of the landholder, be liable to ejectment from his holding : (a) on the ground of any act or omission detrimental to the land in that holding or inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let, or (b) on the ground that he or any person holding from him has broken a condition on the breach of which he is, by special contract which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act, liable to be ejected : Provided that the planting of trees or the making of an improvement in accordance with the provisions of this act shall not constitute a ground for ejectment under this section." "183. Ejectment of certain trespassers - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any provision of this Act, a trespasser who has taken or retained possession of any land without lawful authority shall be liable to ejectment, subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), (on the suit of the person or persons entitled to eject him) and shall be further liable to pay as penalty for each agricultural year, during the whole or any part whereof he has been in such possession, a sum which may extend to fifteen times the annual rent. (2) In case of the land which is held directly from the State Government or to which the State Government, acting through the Tehsildar, is entitled to admit the trespasser as tenant, the, Tehsildar shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956)". "198. (2) In case of the land which is held directly from the State Government or to which the State Government, acting through the Tehsildar, is entitled to admit the trespasser as tenant, the, Tehsildar shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956)". "198. Ejectment.- (1) While the land continues to be grove-land a grove holder shall be liable to ejectment only on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 177 and the provisions of Sections 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 178, 179, 184, 185, 186, 187 and 188 shall apply to him as if he were a tenant. (2) A grove holder who is a trespasser shall be liable to ejectment in accordance with the provisions of Section 183. (3) A sub-tenant of grove holder shall be liable to ejectment on any of the grounds mentioned in Sections 175, 177, 180 and 183 and the provisions of Chapter XI shall apply, so far as may be. (4) A farmer or lessee of a grove holder shall upon suit be liable to ejectment on the ground of contravention of any of the terms of this agreement. (198-A Application of Chapters VIII, XV and XVI-The provisions of Chapters VIII, XV and XVI shall apply to grove land as if the grove holder thereof were a Khatedar tenant.)" 5. Admittedly, the stipulated tenure of holding the land stood expired automatically after the expiry of agreement which was neither extended by the concerned authorities nor any documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioners on record regarding extension of tenure as regards their possession over the land in question, in absence of which, it cannot be inferred that a new settlement by way of an agreement had been arrived at between the parties regarding acquiring any legal right of the petitioners to continue in possession over the land in dispute. 6. The findings recorded by the Assistant Collector were confirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority "RAA" vide its judgment and order dated 13-10-1987 which too in second appeal were confirmed by the Board of Revenue vide "BOR" its judgment and order dated 30-4-1997. In para 5 of its judgment, the Board of Revenue has recorded a specific finding to the effect that the possession of the disputed land forming part of Khasra Nos. In para 5 of its judgment, the Board of Revenue has recorded a specific finding to the effect that the possession of the disputed land forming part of Khasra Nos. 99, 100, 101, 99/ 339, 99/340, 99/341, 99/342, 99/343, 99/344. 99/ 345 and 101/346 to 101/350 measuring 24 Bighas and 16 Biswas was directed to be handed over to respondent No. 2 by the Assistant Collector Kota. Board of Revenue further observed that it is very strange and surprising to note that the directions of this Court dated 1-9-1986 had not been complied with even as on the date when the petitioners had preferred the second appeal before it. Now, the well settled proposition of law in the instant case is that where the findings of the trial Court viz., the Assistant Collector Kota in the instant case have been confirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by entering into the discussion by re-appreciation of evidence on the disputed questions of facts. Whether the petitioners were in the Khatedari of the disputed land, there is no evidence on the record to the effect that the petitioners were in continuous and cultivatory possession over the same and hence, merely because they had acquired the Khatedari rights over the land, in my view would not confer any right, title or interest with the petitioners as per the Act of 1955 to claim possession over the land in dispute or its' continuance thereof. 7. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shri Shiv Ram v. Shri Mishru, 1987 RRD 261 . I have examined the ratio of the said decision. In my view, it does not help in advancing the case of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. The question at issue before the Board of Revenue in above matter was as to whether the land held by the Hindu deity should be deemed to be land held for a public purpose or for a private purpose should be decided on facts of each particular case. The question at issue before the Board of Revenue in above matter was as to whether the land held by the Hindu deity should be deemed to be land held for a public purpose or for a private purpose should be decided on facts of each particular case. Hence, there is no documentary evidence on the record on the basis of which it can be said that even though the petitioners were in possession over the land in dispute by virtue of which they acquired the Khatedari rights under the provisions of Section 16(vi) of the Act of 1955 or under any law for the time being in force rather, the provisions of said section which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners also does not help in advancing the case of the petitioners in any manner since it deals with only those cases where khatedari rights shall not accrue to the concerned individuals who are claiming cultivatory rights over the same. Section 16(vi) of the Act of 1955 reads thus : "16. Land in which Khatedari rights shall not accrue-notwithstanding anything in this Act or (in any other law or enactment for the time being in force in any part of the State) Khatedari rights shall not accrue. (vi) land acquired or held for a public purpose or a work of public utility". 8. The respondents are free to take necessary action for removal of the petitioners who are in unauthorised possession of the land in question in accordance with law. 9. As a result of above discussion, the petition being wholly devoid of merit and rather misconceived is dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******