JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved against the order Annexure-B dated 23.11.1971 passed by the SDO, Annexure-C passed by Revenue Appellate Authority dated 28.10.1975, Annexure-E dated 24.12.1982 passed by the Board of Revenue and Annexure-G dated 13.12.1983 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the suit filed by the petitioners stood dismissed. 2. The petitioners had filed the suit before the SDO in regard to the land bearing Khasra No. 55 measuring 17 Bigha 17 Biswa on the ground that the petitioner was the khatedar tenant and had prayed for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents who were the defendants in the suit. The trial Court had dismissed the suit vide order dated 23.11.1971 (Annexure-B). The appeal filed before the RAA was also dismissed vide order dated 28.10.1975 (Annexure-C). Another challenge was made in second appeal before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue also dismissed the same vide order dated 24.12.1982 (Annexure-E). A review was filed against order Annexure-E which was also dis- missed. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he was a sub-tenant even according to Megh Singh the respondent and, therefore, was included in the definition as given in Section 5(3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and, therefore, entitled to the decree of permanent injunction. It is further contention that Jagir of the respondents stood resumed in the year 1958 and at the time of resumption, the respondent were not khudkasht and, therefore, the respondent-defendants could not have deemed to be khatedar tenant on the land under section 13 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the petitioner who was paying rent to the State became khatedar tenant. It is further submitted that the judgments in question are in violation of Section 19(1-AA) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which provides that if a pers on is recorded as sub-tenant in December 1969, automatically becomes the khatedar tenant. 4. There is no dispute so far the proposition of law as being envisaged by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned.. 4. There is no dispute so far the proposition of law as being envisaged by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned.. The petitioner also relied on the judgments reported in AIR 1991 SC 663 , AIR 1977 SC 5 & AIR 1978 SC 30 , for the proposition that an abolition of Jagirdari and Bisw edari Act, the Biswedar cannot claim the said land as khudkasht when admittedly the possession of the land was not with him or that he had still retained the title if he is not so entered as khudkasht. 5. No doubt the proposition as envisaged now would have some force, but the finding had been written by all the t three Courts against the petitioner in regard to the possession relating to the relevant period. In view of the concurrent finding of fact where the petitioners have not been able to prove their case before the judicial authorities and the suit having been dismissed and both the appeals and the review also rejected, the scope of interference in the writ petition is very little and, therefore, the writ petition as such is dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******