Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant petition, petitioner (defendants) has challenged orders dated 22.08.1984 & 17.05.1979 respectively of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, and Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. 2. Brief facts relevant to examine the controversy are that respondents filed revenue suit for declaration before Sub-Division Officer, Sawai Madhopur inter alia stating that “chah” (Well) of Khasra No. 213 of village Kutka Tehsil Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur was recorded in the name of Jelia & others (plaintiff-respondents), in revenue records so also in Map of Wells (Chahat) of village Kutka for Samvat Years 2009 to 2023, but at later point of time, Kishan (defendant) father of present petitioner who was permitted to draw water from the well in dispute on the basis of “Nalpat” for irrigation, had refused to pay “Nalpat” in Samvat Year 2010, so the plaintiffs stopped supply of water to him. 3. In Samvat Year 2020, petitioner in collusion with the area Patwari got recorded his name recorded as Khatedar of the well in dispute, against which it was prayed that plaintiffs be declared Khatedar tenants, name of defendant be deleted from revenue record. 4. After taking in to consideration plaint and written statement, Sub-Division Officer framed issues. Relevant Issue No. 1 reads as under: ^^vk;k oknh x.k rugk pkg ua-213 vyekgj dksBh [kMskokyh fLFkr xzke dqVdk ds [kkrsnkj gS rFkk izfroknh dh dqvk eqrnkfo;k ls dksbZ ikuh ysus dk “h vf /kdkj ugha gS\^^ 5. After examining the evidence on record, Sub-Division Officer dismissed the suit vide Judgment dated 30.11.1974 against which the plaintiffs preferred appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority Kota, which allowed the appeal vide Judgment dated 17.03.1979 and passed a decree declaring plaintiff a Khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 213 and further deleting the entry from revenue record which was in the name of defendant with regard to “Chah” in dispute. Against aforesaid decree granted by Revenue Appellate Authority the petitioner (defendant) preferred appeal which was partly allowed by Board of Revenue vide Judgment dated 12.08.1984, and the order of Revenue Appellate Authority was modified to the extent that entries in Naksha Chahat from 2009 to 2023 are restored and it is declared that Kishan (defendant) is not Khatedar of disputed “Chah” number. Hence, this writ petition. 6. Hence, this writ petition. 6. Shri S.M. Ali, Counsel for petitioner, has urged that “Naksha Chahat” is not a record of right and no legal right is accrued to respondent-plaintiffs merely because names are recorded and as such it will not give an right to get their names recorded as Khatedar in “Chah” in dispute. It has also been contended that Parcha (Ex. 2) was issued to them for “Chah” in their favour which constitute their right and the same has not been considered by revenue Courts below. On the strength of above contention, it has been urged that findings recorded by Revenue Appellate Authority so also by Revenue Board are not sustainable on the evidence on record, which requires interference by this Court. 7. Per contra, Shri Lokesh Sharma, Counsel for respondents contended that Revenue Appellate Authority so also Board of Revenue have considered entire material on record and recorded concurrent finding of facts and in all documentary evidence on record, names of respondents have been mentioned throughout, but the petitioner (defendant) managed to get their names recorded in Jamabandi of Samvat Years 2027 to 2030, for which no explanation has come forward on record before the Courts below as to how and on what basis, such entry was made. Shri Sharma further urged that submissions made by petitioner are questions of fact which stand settled by Courts below after examining material on record duly corroborated and does not require any interference in limited scope of this Court under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. 8. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and examine the material on record. Under the Judgment dated 22.08.1984, the Revenue Board has specifically recorded that in the document “Naksha Chahat” for Samvat Years 2009 to 2023, at Serial No. 2 Khasra No. 213 has been recorded; in Serial No. 3, “Kherali Wali Pucca Lav do Jal Meetha” has been recorded in Serial No. 4 against column of Khatedar, names of Jeliya & others (plaintiffs) have been recorded and in Serial No. 5 against column of “Aabpashi Kuninda” name of Kishan (defendant) has been shown. After minute reading of this document, the Revenue Board concluded that recorded Khatedars of disputed land are Jeliya & other (Plaintiffs) and claim of Kishna according to this document was only that of “Aabpashi”. After minute reading of this document, the Revenue Board concluded that recorded Khatedars of disputed land are Jeliya & other (Plaintiffs) and claim of Kishna according to this document was only that of “Aabpashi”. That apart, it was not clear from the record as to how Kishan (defendant) managed to get his name recorded as Khatedar tenant in Jamabandi for Samvat Years 2027 to 2030, and as to how mutation in name of Kishan in Samvat Year 2020 was attested and therefore, the Revenue Board recorded finding that all these entries in favour of Kishan are not supported by an order of competent authority and in the light of copy of “Naksha Chahat” for Samvat Years 2009 to 2023, all these entries in favour of Kishan (defendant) were of strong suspicious nature casting doubt about their legality. In this view of categorical finding based on well appreciation of material on record, which is not even controverted in present writ petition, as well, stands settled that plaintiffs are real Khatedar tenants of “chah” No. 213 in dispute and defendant Kishan at best could have only the right of “Nalpat” on the land in dispute as per law. In my considered opinion, contentions advanced by Shri S.M. Ali only requires re-appreciation of material on record, and even after examining the concurrent findings of fact, I find that there is no contrary material available on record which disputes the fact established on record - in the absence of which I do not find any error in the findings of fact recorded by revenue Courts below, which require interference by this Court in limited scope under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India . 9. As regards arguments advanced by Counsel for petitioner with regards to Parcha issued in their favour, complete record of Court below was made available but the Counsel has not been able to show such document, with reference to which no such contention was ever raised or considered before revenue Courts below and in this view of matter, I do not think it proper to examine at this stage such a question of fact based on alleged Parcha. 10. No other submission was made. 11. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.