JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order passed by the Board of Revenue so as the order of other Revenue Authorities. 2. A revenue suit was filed by the petitioners under Sections 88 and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") for declaring petitioner as Khatedar of the land in question. Petitioners' suit was dismissed. The appeal was also dismissed by Revenue Appellate Authority. Petitioners thereafter preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which too was dismissed. Petitioners thereupon preferred a review petition, which was allowed and the matter was remanded for afresh decision on second appeal. The appeal was again heard and dismissed. The petitioner thereupon preferred revision petition, which was also dismissed. In view of aforesaid, there exists concurrent finding of fact of all the courts below against petitioners. Even second appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and now petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners urged that petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute prior to samvat 2016 and accordingly, as per Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Rajasthan Zamidari Biswedari Abolition and Ajmer Tenancy Act, petitioners became Khatedars of the land, however, Revenue Authority has not mutated land in their favour. The document in the form of Girdavari Slip shows their possession prior to Samwat 2016, but the same was ignored by all the revenue authorities. In view of the possession, he deserves to be declared as Khatedar as per the provisions of Section 15(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 4. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners. 5. It is a case where there exists concurrent finding of fact of three revenue courts. The Board of Revenue while hearing second appeal gone into factual aspects also. Therein also no case was found in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners had produced Girdavari Slip for a period prior to samwat year 2016 but therein he has not been shown in cultivatory possession. As per provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, a person can claim rights on the land, if he is recorded in cultivatory possession of the land prior to samwat year 2016. Petitioners failed to produce evidence to prove his cultivatory possession rather the land in dispute was found to be a "padat land". The petitioner could show his possession only. 6. As per provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, a person can claim rights on the land, if he is recorded in cultivatory possession of the land prior to samwat year 2016. Petitioners failed to produce evidence to prove his cultivatory possession rather the land in dispute was found to be a "padat land". The petitioner could show his possession only. 6. In the light of aforesaid, it becomes clear that there is a finding of fact against petitioners and the writ jurisdiction under Article 2206 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for interference in finding of fact unless it is shown to be perverse. A reference of the judgment in case of Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 would be relevant for that purposes wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that jurisdiction of this Court is limited to interfere in the finding of fact. 7. In light of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, accordingly the same is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******