JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the orders Annx.1 dated 01.05.2003, Annx.2 dated 12.10.2004 and Annx.3 dated 05.03.2008 passed by the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 respectively. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length. Carefully gone through the orders impugned. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the three Courts below failed to take into account that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and, therefore, entitled to be declared as the Khatedar tenants. 4. It appears from the orders impugned that the petitioners filed a revenue suit under Secs. 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955" hereinafter) seeking declaration of Khatedari rights before the respondent No.2. From a perusal of the order Annex.1 dated 01.05.2003 passed by the respondent No.2, it appears that the petitioners failed to establish their long possession entitling them for declaration of Khatedari rights; on the contrary, the revenue records, as available, shows that the land of Chak 9-CWD Muraba No. 25/22 village Phoolasar Bada bearing Khasra No.349 has been recorded as Gair-Mumkin land. Before the respondent No.2, the report of the Patwari was available stating therein that Muraba No.25/ 22, Kila No.1 to 14 measuring 14 Bigha, Muraba No.19 to 21 measuring 2 Bigha 17 Biswas, are command land and Kila No.15 to 18 measuring 4 Bigha, Kila No.22 to 25 measuring 3.08 Bigha are un-command Gair-Mumkin pasture land and there is no possession or cultivation thereon. Finding that there being no sufficient evidence to establish the possession of the petitioners over the land which is Gair-Mumkin and pasture land vested in the State, the respondent No.2 dismissed the revenue suit filed by the petitioners. On an appeal before the respondent No.3, on re-appreciation of the evidence, the respondent No.3 did not find any error in the order passed by the respondent No.2 and dismissed the appeal. On an appeal before the respondent No.3, on re-appreciation of the evidence, the respondent No.3 did not find any error in the order passed by the respondent No.2 and dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal filed before the Board of Revenue, respondent No.4, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has taken note of every aspect of the matter and considering the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that the orders passed by the respondents No.2 and 3 do not suffer from any error or illegality and the petitioners failed to establish their long possession and the land has been recorded as Gair-Mumkin and pasture land and there is no evidence that the petitioners have cultivated or are in possession of the land and on these premises, dismissed the second appeal. 5. All the three Courts below concurrently found that the petitioners failed to establish their case and the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by all the three Courts below, in my view, cannot be said to have been suffering from error of law warranting interference in the supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed summarily. No costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******