JUDGMENT : (Passed on 14th October, 2014) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the orders of the Board of Revenue contained in Annexures P/4, P/5 and P/6, by which the order of the Additional Commissioner Revenue Division Gwalior dated 27.05.2005, passed in Second Appeal has been upheld. The said second appeal was allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer, by which the revenue records were directed to be correct by deleting the name of respondent no.5/Kaptan Singh and instead, mutating the name of Rajaram and deceased Ramdas (petitioners herein), on the basis of possession of the petitioners on the disputed property not having been proved. 2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the petitioners were able to demonstrate existence of his possession over the property in question since prior to 1959 and, therefore ought to have been recognized as an occupancy tenant. It is further submitted that in this factual background the benefit of Sections 185 and 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity the “Code”) ought to have been extended to the petitioners. The petitioners have relied on the decision in the case of Vijay Singh Ghorpode v. Laxman Rao Lad : 1985 MPRN 148. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents referring to the order of the Additional Commissioner contends that possession over the property in question could not be established by the petitioners. It is further submitted that even before the civil Court, the petitioners could not prove their possession and, therefore the pre-requisite of favourably invoking Section 185 read with Section 190 of the Code in favour of the petitioners did not arise. 5. The orders passed by the Board of Revenue have merely confirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner Revenue Division, Gwalior, who, in turn, has set aside the orders of the Lower Revenue Courts, i.e., Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, it would be appropriate to scrutinize the findings rendered by the Additional Commissioner Revenue Division Gwalior contained in order dated 27.07.2005 (Annexure P/3). 6. Additional Commissioner Revenue Division, Gwalior found that the revenue records of the year 1993-94 to 1997-98 and so also 1999-2000, did not reflect the petitioners possession over the property in question. Thus, it would be appropriate to scrutinize the findings rendered by the Additional Commissioner Revenue Division Gwalior contained in order dated 27.07.2005 (Annexure P/3). 6. Additional Commissioner Revenue Division, Gwalior found that the revenue records of the year 1993-94 to 1997-98 and so also 1999-2000, did not reflect the petitioners possession over the property in question. In this background of documentary evidence the Additional Commissioner held that it is only from 2007 onwards that the petitioners have been able to establish their possession. The Additional Commissioner further noticed that before the Civil Court, the petitioners were unsuccessful in proving possession and thus rightly held that there is no occasion of invoking Ss. 185 and 190 of the Code of 1959. 7. From reading of the findings recorded by the Revenue Court of the Additional Commissioner in the Second Appeal dated 27.07.2005 and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that the factual findings arrived at by the Additional Commissioner cannot be interfered with in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India especially when there is no occasion to find that any of the revenue Courts have transgressed their jurisdictional limits. 8. In view of the above, no case is made out. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed sans cost.