JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash impugned judgment and decree dated 19.1.2011 passed by the Assistant Collector and Sub Divisional Officer, Luni, decree dated 9.3.2011 and order dated 25.4.2011 (Annex.-7) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 25/2011 and, further, impugned judgment and decree dated 1.12.2011 (Annex.-9) passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the Board of Revenue affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Luni for partition of the property in question. 2. Brief facts of the case are that non-petitioners filed suit for partition and permanent injunction under Sections 53, 92(ka) and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the petitioners and State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar Luni (District Jodhpur). The Assistant Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer passed judgment on 19.1.2011 whereby the partition suit was allowed with regard to the property of late Jagmal Khan and it is held that the plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 to 8, plaintiff No. 9 and respondents No. 1 to 4 will get ⅓ share of the property situated in agriculture Khasra No. 166 rakaba 42 bigha 13 biswa situated in (village Gangana Patwar Circle Boranada Tehsil Luni (District Jodhpur). The Trial Court prepared preliminary decree in pursuance of the said judgment for partition and, thereafter, final decree was prepared on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar which is placed on record as Annex.-5. 3. The petitioners being respondents in the suit preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and raised the grounds that decree has been passed without effecting proper service upon them; so also, the apportionment of the land made in the final decree as per report of the Tehsildar is erroneous because no notice issued by the Tehsildar was served upon the petitioners. The Revenue Appellate Authority while deciding the Appeal No. 25/2011 considered all aspects of the matter and gave finding that notices were properly served upon the appellants and no documentary evidence has been placed on record with regard to their possession for the purpose of apportionment of the land in accordance with the Rajasthan Tenancy (Revenue Record) Rules 1955. The Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 25.4.2011. The Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 25.4.2011. Thereafter, second appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue and Board of Revenue also dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioners and affirmed the order passed by both the Courts below. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that notices were not properly served upon the defendant-petitioners and process server made report for affixing the notices in a parrot-like language, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be quashed. 5. It is also argued that at the time of preparing the final decree although the Tehsildar issued notice to the petitioners but those notices were also not served upon them properly, therefore, the final decree is totally erroneous. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that as per Rules 18 to 21 of the Rules of 1955, at the time of passing final decree, the land which is in possession of the share holder is to be given to them but, here, in this case, erroneously the final decree has been passed without considering important aspects of the matter that the petitioners were in possession of the middle of the land, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be quashed for the simple reason that ex parte judgment was delivered by the Trial Court and final decree has been prepared on the basis of the report given by the Tehsildar without proper service of notice upon them, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court towards the fact that as per the Rules of 1955, at the time of passing final decree, the land which was in possession of the petitioners was to be given but erroneously less important land has been given in share of the petitioners, therefore, the judgment delivered by the Trial Court as well as the judgments passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue may be quashed. 7. The last argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the ground with regard to insufficient service was raised by the petitioners before both the appellate authorities but both the appellate authorities gave erroneous finding to decide the said ground taken by the petitioners in appeal. 7. The last argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the ground with regard to insufficient service was raised by the petitioners before both the appellate authorities but both the appellate authorities gave erroneous finding to decide the said ground taken by the petitioners in appeal. Similarly, it is also pointed out that the ground taken with regard to apportionment of land in which the petitioners were in possession has also been decided erroneously without considering important aspect of the matter that as per Rules 19 to 21 of the Rules of 1955 the land which was in possession of the petitioners was to be given to them as their share, therefore, the impugned judgments and decree passed by the Courts below may be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R. Singhvi, assisted by Mr. Manish Parihar, Advocate, appearing for the caveator-respondents vehemently argued that there is no force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners that service of notice was not effected properly upon them. More so, as per the report of the process server they refused to take notice. Thereafter, notices were affixed at their residential address in presence of the witnesses and, further, it is submitted that both the Appellate Courts categorically gave finding that there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the fact that the petitioners are in possession of particular portion of the land, therefore, the final decree prepared on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar does not require any interference. 9. As per contention of the respondents the concurrent finding given by all the Courts below with regard to service of notice upon the petitioners does not require any interference, so also, the finding given by the First Appellate Court and Second Appellate Court with regard to the fact that there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the fact that the petitioners were in possession of particular portion of the land which is situated in the middle of the land in question, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because the judgments rendered by the Courts below, impugned in this writ petition, are perfectly in consonance with law. 10. 10. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, first of all, I am of the opinion that the concurrent finding of fact given by all the Revenue Courts below with regard to service upon the petitioners cannot be interfered with solely on the ground that scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Further, the ground which is taken h r the respondents with regard to service upon the petitioners is also not acceptable because as per the report given by the process server they refused to accept the notice. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to decide the suit in which the rights of the defendant-petitioners have been protected and petitioners have been granted ⅓ share in the property in question which is not in dispute. Therefore, the first contention of the petitioners with regard to service is hereby rejected. 11. The second ground taken by the petitioners that in the final decree the portion of land in which they were in possession is not given in their share which is in violation of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1955. In my considered opinion, there is no strength in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners because both the Courts below held that no documentary evidence has been produced along with appeal to prove the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the particular piece of land in the middle of the agriculture land situated in Khasra No. 166 of village Gangana. The Revenue Appellate Authority considered this aspect of the matter and specifically gave finding in page last but one of the judgment dated 25.4.2011 that, " blh izdkj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa miyC/k uksfVl fnukad 31-1-2011 tks rglhynkj ( Hkw0v0 ) yw.kh }kjk i{kdkjku dks tkjh dj fnukad 8-2-2011 dks foHkktu izLrko rS;kj fd;s tkus ckcr ekSds ij mifLFkr jgus gsrq lwfpr fd;k x;k gS] ds ifjizs{; esa fo}ku odhy vihyk.V dk ;g rdZ Lor% gh egRoghu dks tkrk gS fd foHkktu izLrko vihyk.V~l dks lwfpr fd;s fcuk ,oa ekSds dh fLFkfr ds foijhr rS;kj fd;k x;k gSA vihyk.V~l oknxzLr vkjkth ds e/; Hkkx esa viuk HkkSfrd dCtk gksuk crkrs gSa] exj bl dFku dh iqf"V fdlh vfHkys[k vFkok Bksl vk/kkj ls ugha gksrh gSA lacaf/kr rglhynkj }kjk fof/kor rS;kj fd;s x;s foHkktu izLrko ds vk/kkj ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk jktLFkku dk'rdkjh ( jktLo e.My ) fu;e] 1955 ds fu;e 18 ls 21 dh ikyuk lqfuf'pr djrs gq, vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh ikfjr fd;s x;s gSaA " 12. Similarly, the Board of Revenue gave following finding in the judgment dated 1.12.2011 with regard to the aforesaid ground which reads as follows: " tgka rd vfUre fMdzh dk iz'u gS] izfroknh vihykFkhZx.k dk bl lEcU/k esa gekjs le{k eq[; rdZ ;gh jgk gS fd mudk fookfnr Hkwfe ds e/; esa dCtk gS ftlls mUgsa e/; dh Hkwfe nh tkosA bl ckjs esa v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; us iw.kZ foospu fd;k gSA i{kdkjksa e/; lg [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe ds foHkktu gsrq jktLo e.My fu;e] 1955 ds fu;e 18 ls 21 cuk;s x;s gSaA bu fu;eksa dk orZeku izdj.k esa ikyuk ugha fd;s tkus ckcr fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd vihykFkhZ us gekjs le{k dksbZ ,rjkt izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA fookfnr Hkwfe ds e/; dh ;k vU; dksbZ fof'k"V Hkw&Hkkx fdlh Hkh i{kdkj dks ugha fn;k tk ldrkA i{kdkjksa ds e/; lg [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe dk vPNh esa ls vPNh ,oa cqjh esa ls cqjh Hkwfe dk muds fgLls ds vuqlkj foHkktu fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA lquokbZ gsrq izfroknh izkFkhZx.k dks uksfVl Hkh tkjh fd;s x;s gSa ,oa rglhynkj }kjk ekSds ij tkdj caVokjk izLrko rS;kj fd;k x;k gSA tgka ij Hkh muds }kjk dksbZ fojks/k izdV fd;k tkuk tkfgj ugha gksrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ge nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds leorhZ fu.kZ; esa fdlh izdkj =qfV ugha ikrs gSa ,oa ;g vihy [kkfjt djuk mfpr le>rs gSaA " 13. In view of above, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Courts below for granting the partition decree and apportionment of the land in ⅓ share in favour of the respective parties. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******