Honble Arvind, M.—This is revision petition u/S. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the judgment dated 30.3.2002 passed by learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Banswara in Appeal No. 89/2001. 2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that patwari Halka, Kheran Ka Pada reported to the Tehsildar, Gardhi that the petitioner has encroached upon Khasra No. 2327/2755 area .006 hectare and constructed pucca boundary and erected gate. Learned Tehsildar, Garhi initiated proceedings u/Ss. 90-A and 91 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and passed ejectment orders against the petitioner on 27.10.1997. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Distt. Collector, Banswara, which was accepted and the matter was sent back to Tehsildar, Garhi for re-hearing and decision. Again learned Tehsildar, Garhi passed the ejectment order against the petitioner on 20.11.2000 and passed the ejectment order. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the learned Distt. Collector, Banswara, which was dismissed on 30.8.2001. Against this order, the petitioner submitted a second appeal before learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Banswara, who by his judgment dated 30.3.2002 rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.3.2002, this is a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. 3. Arguing in support of the petition, the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the order passed by the subordinate Courts are illogical and illegal per se and need to be cancelled. He also argued that no proper examination of the matter was made regarding the rules of regularisation issued by the Government from time to time, where as this case deserves to be regularised. He has also argued that he has made no encroachment but even if it is found that there is some encroachment then it needs to be regularised. He also argued that the documents presented by the petitioner were ignored by all the subordinate Courts. All the three orders of subordinate Courts are not logical and they are not just and proper and as such all the three orders need to be cancelled. 4. Arguing against the petition, the arguments of the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate on behalf of the State Government is that the petitioner has encroached on the land which is being used as Rasta, which is a government land. 4. Arguing against the petition, the arguments of the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate on behalf of the State Government is that the petitioner has encroached on the land which is being used as Rasta, which is a government land. He also argued that as per orders of the government only a maximum of 6 acres of land can be regularised whereas the petitioner is already in possession of land which is far beyond this limit. He also argued that the petitioner has encroached upon the land which is not necessary for his bona fide dwelling. This matter has been examined by Tehsildar twice because earlier on an appeal this case was remanded back to Tehsildar and his subsequent order dated 20.11.2000 learned Tehsildar has examined the matter at length and learned Tehsildar has given in this order that in addition to the dwelling house the petitioner has encroached upon the government land without any need for a dwelling house. Learned Tehsildar has also examined that a pucca house in an area of 10 acres is already available with the petitioner in the village and this additional occupation of land is only with the intention of grabbing the land and it is not with a bona fide purpose of dwelling house. This is a case of greed and not need. Greed cannot demand equity. The petitioner has encroached upon the land which was used as rasta by the villagers and the Sarpanch also protested against this encroachment. This matter was examined at length by the learned Distt. Collector, Banswara and all the facts were considered and the learned Distt. Collector has upheld the order of learned Tehsildar. Learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority also examined this matter at length and he also found that there is no force in the appeal of the petitioner and the grounds taken for regularisation are not proper and the encroachment is not justified. He prayed that since the encroachment is with an intention of grabbing the government land and is also creating harassment to the villagers by blocking their rasta and as such the encroachment is not with the bona fide purpose of dwelling house because he is already having lots of area for dwelling house and a Pucca constructed house in additional to this encroachment is available with the petitioner. This encroachment is only a boundary wall with an intention of grabbing the land. This encroachment is only a boundary wall with an intention of grabbing the land. As such there is no justification for accepting this revision. He also argued that since the matter has been examined at three levels earlier, there are no grounds in the revision which can justify interference in the orders of lower Courts. 5. Having heard the parties, having perused the record and having carefully examined all the factors in the case, I find that having put the impugned orders to the test of legality and propriety, I find nothing which can guide me to interfere with the impugned orders of the lower Courts. The order of learned Tehsildar, Garhi has been logically concluded, the petitioner was heard at that stage and he was subsequently heard by two appellate Courts but nothing was found which could justify his encroachment. The petitioner has a huge pucca house in the same village but only with the intention to grab the land he has encroached upon the land. This is a case of Greed and not Need. As such I find no ground for interfering with the three impugned orders of the lower Courts which are consistent and logical. As such this revision petition is rejected and all the three order of lower Courts, i.e., of Tehsildar, Garhi dated 20.11.2000, Distt. Collector, Banswara dated 30.8.2001 and Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Banswara dated 30.3.2002 are upheld. This petition is dismissed. Pronounced