HOOJA, C.—This is a second appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2008 of Revenue Appellate Authority Chittorgarh passed in first appeal No. 49/2004. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the second appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit under section 88 of the Act for conferment of khatedari rights in disputed land bearing khasra No. 7 measuring 4.37 hectares and khasra No. 9 measuring 0.03 hectare recorded as government and (tank). The trial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 10.2.04 aggrieved against which the appellants-plaintiffs filed first appeal under section 223 of the Act before Revenue Appellate Authority who rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 19.11.08. Hence the second appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsels of the rival parties. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has pleaded that the disputed land has been in possession of the appellant-plaintiffs since the days of Jagirdars who had given the land to their fore-fathers who built a `Nadi' (tank) on the disputed land for the purpose of irrigating adjoining land of their khatedari rights. In view of the fact that the appellant-plaintiffs have been in possession of this land for very long period and constructed a tank on it, khatedari right should be conferred on the appellants-plaintiffs. Both lower courts have erred in dismissing the suit disregarding the fact of appellants' possession on the disputed land. The appellants-plaintiffs had also produced receipts of irrigation cess paid to Ex-Jagirdars but both the lower courts have ignored this important fact of possession on the disputed land. The disputed land is wrongly entered in revenue record as rank, so this entry should be corrected and appellants-plaintiffs should be declared as khatedars of the land under consideration. 5. Countering the arguments of the appellants-plaintiffs, the learned Government Advocate contended that the disputed land has always been a government land, recorded as `Kism Tank' in the revenue records. There is no provision of conferment of khatedari rights on the land of tank which is used as community water body (Talab) for the common purpose of drinking- both for men and cattle. The catchment area of the tank is also used for grazing of the cattle. There is no provision of conferment of khatedari rights on the land of tank which is used as community water body (Talab) for the common purpose of drinking- both for men and cattle. The catchment area of the tank is also used for grazing of the cattle. Section 16 of the Act expressly prohibits grant of khatedari rights in such a land of water body which is used for common community purpose. As such both the lower courts have done nothing wrong and illegal in dismissing the suit. 6. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully gone through the file of the case. 7. Admittedly, the disputed land is recorded as government land (Tank) in jamabandi and all other revenue record. Both the lower courts have given their concurrent findings that the disputed land has been entered in revenue record as `Bilanama' (tank) for last 75 years (since Svt. 1986). This finding of both the lower courts is based on the documentary evidence adduced before them. It is also admitted that there has not been any agricultural cultivation on the disputed land which is basically a tank. The concurrent finding of facts cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. The only legal issue before us is whether khatedari rights can be conferred on a person claiming alleged possession of a long standing on a land which is used for common purpose. It has been concurrently held by both the lower courts that the disputed land in which water body (tank) is situated is used for the drinking purpose of both men and cattle; and its water is also used for sacramental purpose during `Jaljhulani Ekadashi' by the people of the village. Section 16(vi) expressly bars accrual of khatedari rights in such land of public purpose and public utility. In addition to this, Hon'ble High Court in D.B. Civil Writ petition No. 1536/03 `Abdul Rehman vs. State of Rajasthan and others' has mandated that the land of water bodies must not be allotted to anybody and even if somehow such land was allotted in the past, such allotment should be cancelled and original position of the water body and its catchment area must be restored. In light of this established legal position, there is absolutely no provision for accrual of khatedari rights in land of tank/pond which is used for common public purpose and public utility. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the concurrent judgments of both the courts below. As such the appeal fails. 9. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed in limine. Pronounced.