JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 12.9.97 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 84 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ( for short "the Act") against the order dated 24.11.90 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority-I, (RAA-I), Jodhpur, in Appeal No.254/89, stands dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that Naib Tehsildar, Nagaur initiated the proceedings for removal of the unauthorised occupation of the petitioner over the land ad measuring 30 bighas comprising khasra no.1051 in village-Dahru. After giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, vide order dated 4.9.85 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, the petitioner was directed to be evicted from the land in question. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Nagaur. The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.7.89. The petitioner preferred second appeal before RAA-I, Jodhpur under Section 76 of the Act, which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.11.90. Aggrieved thereby, a revision petition preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not encroached upon the Government land as alleged by the respondents. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, fragmentation of the land is such that a natural wall was carved out which existed at the site since time immemorial and the petitioner has nothing to do with the raising of the said sand wall. Learned counsel submitted that only because water used to flow along the sand wall and enter into the field of the petitioner, the respondent no. 6 out of the jealousy raised the grievance. Learned counsel submitted that no proceeding were initiated against the petitioner for removal of the alleged encroachment and it is only at the instance of respondent no.6, the order impugned evicting the petitioner was passed by the Naib Tehsildar. Learned counsel submitted that the courts below have not considered the matter in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings being arrived at. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the courts below have not considered the matter in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings being arrived at. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 submitted that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this court inasmuch as, the petitioner's son has filed a suit for declaration of easementary right and permanent injunction in respect of the land in question, which is pending before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner made encroachment and therefore, the proceedings under Section 91 of the Act were initiated against him. Learned counsel drawing the attention of this court to the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar, submitted that after due inquiry, the Naib Tehsildar found that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of 4 bighas and 19 biswas land of khasra no.1051 and accordingly, the order of eviction was passed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 91 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioner has no claim over the land in question and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Naib Tehsildar, which stands affirmed by the appellate courts and revisional court, does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, the land in question is a Government land. As a matter of fact, the case of the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was that he has not trespassed over the land in question rather, he has only made arrangements to store flooded water. It is to be noticed that a concurrent finding has been arrived at by the courts below regarding petitioner's trespassing over the land in question. Even if the petitioner is not cultivating the land in question and using the land only for the purpose of arrangement of flooded water by constructing embankment, it amounts to encroachment over the Government land and therefore, the proceedings taken against the petitioner for removal of his unauthorised possession in terms of provisions of Section 91 of the Act, cannot be faulted with. 7. 7. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******