JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed assailing concurrent finding of fact recorded by three revenue authorities holding that all the six legal heirs of deceased were entitled to receive equal ⅙ share and accordingly the share was equally devolved & Ramhet @ Heta, defendant petitioner son of the recorded tenant Mool Chand also equally holds ⅙ share of the subject property. 2. A Revenue suit came to be filed before the Deputy District Collector under Section 88 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for sub division of subject property of the deceased to be equally devolved amongst all legal heirs which came to be decided on 25.1.2007 and arrived at a finding that each of the legal heirs of the deceased was entitled to ⅙th of his share and the defendant petitioner being one of them equally devolved ⅙ of his share. However, the revenue authority was concerned only with the agriculture land and accordingly devolved the property as under: mijksDr rF;ksa dh jks'kuh esa fookfnr Hkwfe [k0ua0 66 jdck 1-07 gSDVj] 71 jdck 1-02 gSDVj] 73 jdck 1-40 gSDVj fLFkr xzke ck<+ yk[kuiqj rglhy ckeuokl dk jkeLo:i ds okfjl oknh jk/ks';ke o jes'k pan fgLlk 1@6] oknh mRredqekj fgLlk 1@6] oknh jru yky fgLlk 1@6] izfroknh eksrh yky ds okfjlku lhrkjke] deydqekj] jkeorkj o eq0 jkes'ojh fgLlk 1@6] izfroknh ua0 2 jkegsr fgLlk 1@6 o izfroknh ua0 3 xksj;k mQZ xksdy fgLlk 1@6 ds fojklr ds vk/kkj ij [kkrsnkj dkfct dk'rdkj ?kksf"kr fd, tkrs gS] rnkuqlkj orZeku bUnzkt fujLr dj jktLo fjdkMZ esa nq:Lrh dh tkos rFkk rglhynkj ckeuokl@mirglhy cjukyk dks foHkktu dh caVokjk Ldhe eaxok;h tkdj i=koyh fnukad 15-2-2007 dks is'k gks] izkFkfed fMxzh tkjh gksA 3. Against the order of Deputy District Collector an appeal came to be filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was to be dismissed vide order dated 18.5.2009 affirming the order of Deputy District Collector and the second appeal was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 27.6.2012. Thus, the order of Sub Divisional Collector attained finality and concurrent finding was arrived at all three stages and the contention advanced by the petitioner regarding oral family settlement being arrived at between the parties that the suit property was in possession of the defendant petitioner does not find favour. 4. Thus, the order of Sub Divisional Collector attained finality and concurrent finding was arrived at all three stages and the contention advanced by the petitioner regarding oral family settlement being arrived at between the parties that the suit property was in possession of the defendant petitioner does not find favour. 4. However, this is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given equal ⅙ share and the property of the deceased devolved among all the legal heirs but his grievance is that in view of an oral family settlement being executed, the petitioner was entitled to get the subject land in question mutated in his favour but that was not taken into consideration. 5. As already observed that as regard oral family settlement was not accepted by the revenue courts and the finding of fact has been affirmed at all stages and this Court does not find manifest error being committed by the courts below which requires interference. 6. Counsel for petitioner submits that the finding of this court may adversely affect the rights of the petitioner as regard other properties of the deceased. As the petitioner is also one of the legal heir it will be relevant to observe that the present dispute is confined only to the agriculture land and if there is any property other than agriculture land, the parties are at liberty to seek remedy which the law permits to them. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed with the observation made supra.Petition dismissed. *******