JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Respondent No.3 Bhagtaram filed an application under Section 183(B) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for dispossession of non-applicants including petitioner Birma and respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8 herein, on the ground that land in dispute was alloted to him and his name has been recorded in revenue record. Tehsildar, Mauzmabad allowed the application and passed an order of dispossession of non-applicants. 3. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner, but the same was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur vide judgment dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure-3). Thereafter, petitioner preferred a revision petition, but the same was also dismissed by the Revenue Board, Ajmer vide order dated 01.06.2010 (Annexure-4). Hence, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that land in dispute was alloted to him and he was in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, Revenue Board as well as Additional Collector and Tehsildar committed an illegality in passing the impugned orders, which are liable to be set aside by this Court. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the Tehsildar, Additional Collector and Revenue Board, who all have passed the order of dispossession of petitioner from the land in dispute. There is finding by all the authorities below that disputed land was alloted to respondent No.3 Bhagtaram. 6. The question of possession over the disputed land is purely a question of fact and there is finding of fact by the competent authorities in favour of respondent No.3, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot convert itself into a Court of appeal and re-appreciate the evidence. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297) , held the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim (AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38) , held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 , has held as under:- "The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character." 10. Finding of fact recorded by the Additional Collector as well as Revenue Board cannot be interfered with by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.Petition dismissed. *******