JUDGMENT 1. - In the instant petition Arts. 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the order Annex.8 dated 26.06.2008 passed by respondent Board of Revenue has been challenged. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the order impugned as also record of the case. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in a revenue suit filed by respondent No.4 Mandir Shri Thakurji, on an application filed by respondent No.4, Sub Divisional Officer, Churu, respondent No.3 appointed a receiver under Sec. 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). That order came to be challenged by the petitioners before respondent No.2. Revenue Appellate Authority, Churu by way of an appeal under Sec. 225 of the Act. That appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2007, against which revision petition was preferred by petitioners before respondent No.1, Board of Revenue. By the impugned order, the said revision has also been dismissed. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in a suit for possession, a receiver cannot be appointed. There is no provision for appointment of receiver. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on decisions reported in 1949 Ajmer 11, 1955 Madras 430, RLR 2000(2) 354 and 2001 WLC (UC) 802. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the material available on record. 6. It appears that the land has been recorded in the record of rights in the name of idol Thakurji which is a perpetual minor and land of deity being a perpetual minor, was taken in possession by petitioners and therefore, a suit dispossessing the petitioners from land and recording in the name of deity was filed. An application under Sec. 212 of the Act was filed for appointment of receiver on the ground that petitioners have been cutting the trees and taking away from the land of deity and are bent upon to change the situation. Respondent Sub Divisional Officer appointed a Receiver. 7. All the three Courts below have concurrently held that to preserve and protect the land of deity, which is a perpetual minor, appointed the receiver during pendency of revenue suit and since all the three Courts below concurrently found against the petitioners, in my view, no case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 227 of Constitution of India is made out. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is confined only to see whether inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of record, much less error of law as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhan Lodha v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 1561 . The decisions relied upon by the petitioners turn on their own facts and are of no help to the petitioners. The petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******