JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the negation of the impugnment of the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer thereby sustaining the adjudication on the issue involved by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sri Karanpur, the writ-petitioners are in appeal seeking annulment of the order dated 9.1.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 510/2009. 2. We have heard Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants-writ-petitioners. 3. The facts in brief necessary to be noticed are that according to the appellants-writ-petitioners, their predecessor-in-interest Puran Das had been allotted the land involved under the Rajasthan Colonization (Gang Canal Permanent Allotment) Rules, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and eventually, on his application, it was recorded in his favour as "Muhafidaar". However, an endorsement was also made as "Maafi-Masjid" in the jamabandi of samvat 2016. According to the appellants-writ-petitioners, without their knowledge, the said land was subsequently recorded as "sawai chak" i.e. Government land during the samvat years 2057 to 2060. Following such entry, the revenue authorities threatened the appellants-writ-petitioners to dispossess them from the land. A suit was thus filed by the son of Puran Das i.e. Devilal inter-alia for correction of the revenue records. Alongwith the suit, an application under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was also filed seeking injunction against interference with his possession of the land. The defendants therein resisted the application for injunction on the ground that the suit land belonged to the Government and thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction as prayed for. The learned Sub Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur before whom the suit was filed by the order dated 2.4.2005 dismissed the application for injunction. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred against the order dated 2.4.2005 in the Court of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar, which vide its order dated 12.4.2005 dismissed the appeal. Devilal having unsuccessfully challenged the decision before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the appellants-writ-petitioners sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to set at naught the above referred series of adjudication. 4. Devilal having unsuccessfully challenged the decision before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the appellants-writ-petitioners sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to set at naught the above referred series of adjudication. 4. The State-respondents while admitting that Puran Das had been allotted the land in question under the Rules in the year 1967, have asserted that the same had later been recorded as "araji raj" land during the settlement of samvat 2026 to 2035 and subsequent thereto as well in the revenue records. That accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to any injunction as prayed for and that, he had thus been denied the same rightly, has been underlined. 5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the challenge to the adjudication made by the lower forums on the ground that the concurrent findings recorded by them did not warrant any interference therewith. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants-petitioners are in appeal. 6. Mr. Jain has emphatically argued that as the entries in the revenue records are essentially for fiscal purposes and that the same do not confer title in the land involved, the denial of temporary injunction merely on the basis thereof and that too by totally disregarding the fact that the same (entries in the revenue records) had been made ex-parte and without affording any reasonable opportunity to the predecessor-in-title of the appellants-writ-petitioners, is erroneous and illegal and thus, it is a fit case where the impugned order be set aside and they (appellants-writ-petitioners) be granted injunction, as prayed for. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellants-writ-petitioner and on a scrutiny of the materials on record to the extent necessary at this stage, we do not feel persuaded to take a view different from the one adopted by the revenue forums as well as the learned Single Judge. The suit filed by Devilal S/o. Puran Das is pending. As would be evident from the decision rendered on the application for injunction by the learned trial court as well as in the appeals therefrom, all the forums declined the injunction on the ground that in the relevant revenue records, the land has been recorded as Government land and thus, tested on the criteria of prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the prayer for injunction was not grantable. This finding essentially is based on contemporaneous records. This finding essentially is based on contemporaneous records. Though such an entry per se may not render the suit infructuous and depending on the evidence adduced appropriate decision vis-a-vis the claim for correction of the entries may ensue at the end of the trial thereof, we in the teeth of the concurrent findings of all the preceding forums as referred to hereinabove do not see any cogent or weighty reason to take a different view or hold otherwise. 8. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. However, we make it clear that the observations made as above are wholly limited to the issue of injunction arising of the pleadings to that effect and already on record and would have no bearing on the process of adjudication of the suit on merits. The learned trial court is thus requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from today.Special appeal dismissed. *******