Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner filed a revenue suit no.604/79 under Sec. 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ``the Act) for declaration of the khatedari rights of the disputed land which was initially decreed in his favour on 30.3.81 and he was declared as khatedar tenant of the said land and his name was also entered in the record of rights. However, the Collector, Jaisalmer made a reference before the Board of Revenue for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.8.81 passed by the Assistant Collector, Pokaran declaring the petitioner as khatedar tenant and entering his name in the record of rights. The said reference was made on the ground that only on the oral evidence, the decree was passed which was not in accordance with law. There was in all eight references made including the present one. All of them were accepted by the common judgment and order dated 10.3.86 (Annex.2) and the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Pokaran in all the suits including the suit of the petitioner were quashed and set aside. (2). The petitioner filed writ petition before this court against the impugned order at Annex.1 passed by the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 31.7.90 and the order of Board of Revenue was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector with a direction to record the evidence of the petitioners side as well as of the State and thereafter decided the suit afresh and in accordance with law. (3). Accordingly, the petitioner led oral evidence of as many as six witnesses including himself. However, this time, the learned S.D.O, Bikaner after appreciating oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record dismissed the suit of the petitioner by his judgment and decree dated 8.4.92. The same was challenged in appeal filed under Sec. 223 of the Act before the Revenue Appellate Authority but the same was also dismissed on 7.6.97. The impugned orders are at Annexs. 3 and 4 respectively. (4). The petitioner filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue against the orders passed by the Courts below but the same was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 2.1.98 (Annex.5). (5). The impugned orders are at Annexs. 3 and 4 respectively. (4). The petitioner filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue against the orders passed by the Courts below but the same was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 2.1.98 (Annex.5). (5). These impugned orders at Annexs.3,4 and 5 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue respectively are challenged in this petition by the petitioner. (6). Learned counsel Mr. Bissa for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order Annex.5 passed by the Board of Revenue is a non-speaking order, therefore, it is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the Board of Revenue. (7). Going through the impugned order, it cannot be said that it is not a speaking order. It is true that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is a very order, however, the Board of Revenue has not only considered the orders passed by the courts below but also considered other evidence and the fact that merely because the name of the petitioner was shown in khasra Girdawari of Samwat 2040 in his capacity as a trespasser, that would not be sufficient to declare him as a khatedar tenant. I may reproduce that portion of the order passed by the Board of Revenue which is as under:- ^^vihykaV us nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dks bl ckcr larqf"V ugha djkbZ fd os jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e ds izHkkokhy gksus ds iwoZ ls vkjkth ij dkfct gks] mldk uke vkjkth ij d`"kd] mi d`"kd ;k vU; fdlh gSfl;r ls ntZ ughaa] dsoy ek= lEor~ 2040 esa [kljk fxjnkojh esa vfrØe.kh dh gSfl;r ls uke ntZ gks tkus ls mls [kkrsnkj dkrdkj ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk] blh fcUnq ij nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us mlds nkos dks [kkfjt fd;k gSA ge mu foLr`r fu.kZ;ksa ls iw.kZr% lger gS ,oa muds }kjk ikfjr vknsk dks bl f}rh; vihy esa nksgjkuk mfpr ugha le>rsA** (8). Thus, it cannot be said to be a non-speaking order. I am of the considered opinion that when the second appellate authority is concurring with the reasoning assigned by the courts below and when it is in complete agreement with the view taken by the courts below, then it is not necessary for the second appellate authority to assign detailed reasons. I am of the considered opinion that when the second appellate authority is concurring with the reasoning assigned by the courts below and when it is in complete agreement with the view taken by the courts below, then it is not necessary for the second appellate authority to assign detailed reasons. The reasons assigned by the Board of Revenue being second appellate authority in this case are more than sufficient. Hence, the first submission raised by Mr. Bissa is rejected. (9). Learned counsel Mr. Bissa then submitted that the learned courts below committed an error in not relying upon the oral evidence led by the petitioner and dismissed the suit only on the ground that there was no authentic documentary evidence produced by the petitioner in his favour. In support of his submission, Mr. Bissa has relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Saukhan vs. State of Rajasthan (1). (10). In Saukhans case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that when there are two sets of evidence oral as well as documentary evidence and the oral evidence is truthful and is admissible in evidence under the Act then it cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the documentary evidence was not produced on the record. There cannot be any quarrel between the principle laid down by the Division Bench. If that was the case here then the present petition filed by the petitioner would have been straightaway accepted. But that is not the case. (11). From the impugned order at Annex.3 passed by the S.D.O. Pokaran on 8.4.92 dismissing the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff, it is clear from the discussion made by him in para 29 onwards of the judgment that the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness was not consistent. Not only that, all the witnesses were talking differently from each other. Under the circumstances, if the fact finding authority namely, S.D.O. refused to place any reliance upon the oral evidence led by the petitioner, then it cannot be said that he has committed any error. Similarly, the Appellate Authority also considered in his impugned order at Annex.4 the evidence and also the findings recorded by the S.D.O. and dismissed the appeal. In this view of the matter, the second submissions raised by Mr. Bissa cannot be accepted. (12). Except the aforesaid contentions, no other contention was raised. (13). Similarly, the Appellate Authority also considered in his impugned order at Annex.4 the evidence and also the findings recorded by the S.D.O. and dismissed the appeal. In this view of the matter, the second submissions raised by Mr. Bissa cannot be accepted. (12). Except the aforesaid contentions, no other contention was raised. (13). I do not find any substance or merits in this petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.