JUDGMENT 1. The appellants-writ-petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.9.2004 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4090/2004 negating their assailment of the order dated 27.8.2004 rendered by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in revision no. 136/01 affirming the order dated 19.6.2001 of the District Collector, Nagaur in revenue appeal no. 11/2000, seek redress in the instant special appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel for the appellants-writ-petitioners and Mr. O.P. Boob, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The pleaded averments reveal that the respondents no. 4 to 9 did move an application before the Tehsildar, Makrana District Nagaur under section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") contending that they were the recorded khatedars of land measuring 37 bigha 9 biswa included in khasra no. 118 and 180 located at village Devri Tehsil Makrana. Apart from pleading that they were members of the scheduled caste community, they alleged that the appellants-writ-petitioners while they (respondents no. 4 to 9) had been temporarily out of the village had trespassed into and occupied 6 bigha of such land. The respondents no. 4 to 9 therefore sought restoration of the possession of the land involved. On receipt of notice issued by the Tehsildar, Makrana in this regard, the appellants-writ-petitioners submitted their reply asserting inter-alia that they were in possession of the entire 77 bigha of land borne in khasras no. 118 and 180 and that the name of the father of the respondents no. 4 to 9 had been wrongly mentioned in khatedari of 6 bigha therefor. They mentioned as well that meanwhile they had filed a suit for declaration and injunction as well as for correction of the entries in the revenue records before the Additional Collector, Nagaur and that the said proceeding was pending. 4. The Tehsildar, Makrana eventually by his order dated 22.12.1999 rejected the application filed by the respondents no. 4 to 9 being barred by limitation, the same according to the said authority, having been filed after 12 years from the date on which the land involved had been in possession of the appellants-writ-petitioners. Being aggrieved, the respondents no. 4 to 9 preferred revenue appeal no. 11/2000 before the learned District Collector, Nagaur. 4 to 9 being barred by limitation, the same according to the said authority, having been filed after 12 years from the date on which the land involved had been in possession of the appellants-writ-petitioners. Being aggrieved, the respondents no. 4 to 9 preferred revenue appeal no. 11/2000 before the learned District Collector, Nagaur. This forum by its decision dated 19.6.2001 however reversed the verdict of the Tehsildar, Makrana on the ground that the records available established that the respondents no. 4 to 9 were the khatedars in respect of the land involved. It took note of the fact that whereas the respondents no. 4 to 9 alleged that theappellants-writ-petitioners had encroached thereupon, the latter claimed to be in possession thereof from the year 1953 (samvat 2010). That at that point of time (date of decision of the District Collector, Nagaur), the appellants-writ-petitioners were in possession of the land was noted. It was held that though the records disclosed that the respondents no. 4 to 9 were the occupants of the land, the Tehsildar, Makrana had rejected this claim as they did not file alongwith their application an affidavit to this effect. Taking note of the fact that the respondents no. 4 to 9 are members of the scheduled caste and that in terms of the letter and spirit of Section 183-B of the Act in case of their dispossession from the land involved, a summary process ought to be undertaken to restore their possession, it concluded that the application filed by them could not be construed to be barred by time, the same having been presented in the year 1997 immediately after they were ousted. The order of the Tehsildar, Makrana was interfered with. 5. Being dissatisfied with this determination, the appellants-writ-petitioners approached the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer under section 230 of the Act. On a scrutiny of the documents in particular as laid before it, the learned Board of Revenue returned a finding that the respondents no. 4 to 9 had been in possession of the land from the very beginning and that the appellants-writ-petitioners had encroached thereupon in the month of May, 1997. On a scrutiny of the documents in particular as laid before it, the learned Board of Revenue returned a finding that the respondents no. 4 to 9 had been in possession of the land from the very beginning and that the appellants-writ-petitioners had encroached thereupon in the month of May, 1997. It did not sustain the claim of the appellants-writ-petitioners to be in possession of the land on the basis of an agreement dated 16.8.1953 and thus, negated as well the finding of the Tehsildar, Makrana on the basis thereof that they (appellants-writ-petitioners) had been occupying the same for the last 40 to 50 years rendering the application under section 183-B of the respondents no. 4 to 9 to be barred by limitation. The learned Board of Revenue noticed that the respondents no. 4 to 9 had submitted their application on 16.8.1997 before the learned District Collector, Nagaur, which was thereafter transferred to the Tehsildar, Makrana for needful. Underlining the avowed objective of Section 183-B of the Act, the learned Board of Revenue concluded that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the learned District Collector, Nagaur did not warrant interference. It recorded a categorical finding that the respondents no. 4 to 9 while were in possession of the land involved in the capacity of khatedars, they were dispossessed therefrom in the year 1997 forcibly by the appellants-writ-petitioners and that having regard to the mandate of Section 183-B of the Act for expeditious redressal of the grievances of members of the scheduled caste community in this regard, the decision of the learned District Collector, Nagaur deserved to be upheld. Being confronted with such concurrent verdicts of the learned District Collector, Nagaur and the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the appellants-writ-petitioners turned to this Court. However, by the impugned judgment and order, their challenge has been dismissed. 6. Mr. Kotwani has emphatically argued that it being evident that the appellants-writ-petitioners had been in possession of the disputed land since 1953 on the basis of the document dated 16.8.1953 executed by Chunaram, the father of the respondents no. 4 to 9, their hugely belated application under section 183-B of the Act falsely alleging their dispossession therefrom had been rightly rejected by the Tehsildar, Makrana. 4 to 9, their hugely belated application under section 183-B of the Act falsely alleging their dispossession therefrom had been rightly rejected by the Tehsildar, Makrana. According to the learned counsel, the learned District Collector and the learned Board of Revenue erred in appreciating the materials on record in holding that the appellants-writ-petitioners had forcibly dispossessed the respondents no. 4 to 9 from the land in question in the year 1997. That the suit for declaration and injunction and also for correction of the revenue records instituted by the appellants-writ-petitioners totally belies the claim of the respondents no. 4 to 9 to the contrary, has been underlined as well. Mr. Kotwani has urged that the learned Single Judge had fallen in error in proceeding on the basis that the respondents no. 4 to 9 had been dispossessed by the appellants-writ-petitioners in the year 1997 while affirming the decisions of the learned District Collector and the learned Board of Revenue. 7. As against this, Mr. Boob has argued that three preceding forums having concurrently held that the respondents no. 4 to 9 had been wrongly dispossessed by the appellants-writ-petitioners in the year 1997 and that reckoned from that point of time, their application under section 183-B of the Act had been wrongly rejected being barred by time, no interference therewith in the instant appeal is warranted. 8. We have analyzed the pleadings on record and the arguments advanced. 9. That the respondents no. 4 to 9 belong to the scheduled caste community is not in dispute. Their names are also entered in the revenue records as khatedars in respect of the land involved. It is the categorical case of the appellants-writ-petitioners that they instituted a suit amongst others for correction of the revenue records. It is their admission that the name of the father of the respondents no. 4 to 9 had been recorded in respect of the disputed land albeit according to them wrongly. The learned District Collector, Nagaur, on the basis of the revenue records, had recorded a finding that in terms thereof as well, the respondents no. 4 to 9 are shown to be the occupants thereof. That since May, 1997, the appellants-writ-petitioners are in possession has been noted. The said authority recorded as well that the appellants-writ-petitioners had encroached upon the land in question in the year 1997 and are claiming possession thereof on the said basis. 4 to 9 are shown to be the occupants thereof. That since May, 1997, the appellants-writ-petitioners are in possession has been noted. The said authority recorded as well that the appellants-writ-petitioners had encroached upon the land in question in the year 1997 and are claiming possession thereof on the said basis. These findings have been concurred upon by the learned Board of Revenue. The learned Single Judge while generally endorsing the above findings, rejected the consideration of delay in filing application under section 183-B of the Act or acquisition of title in the land by adverse possession. 10. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are of the view that the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the learned District Collector, learned Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge, which are borne out by the records, do not merit any interference in the instant appeal. Section 183-B of the Act on the face of it provides protection to a tenant belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe from a trespasser on his land by summary ejectment on an application of the person entitled to evict such trespasser or a public servant authorised by the State Government in that regard. Section 183-B mandates that the enquiry contemplated is to be of a summary nature, of course, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person alleged to be the trespasser. The analysis of the pleaded facts and the documents on record as undertaken by the learned District Collector, learned Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge, in our view, has been consistent and in right perspective attuned to the avowed purpose of Section 183-B. We refrain from dilating further in this regard in view of the pendency of the suit said to have been instituted by the appellants-writ-petitioners. We also make it clear that the observations made hereinabove are limited to the aspects attendant on the application under section 183-B of the Act alone. 11. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******