JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 21.12.11 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 1.12.04 of Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Jodhpur, allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents against the order dated 9.6.04 passed by the Additional Collector (Development), Jodhpur, stands dismissed. 2. The respondents having their agriculture land in village-Dhob, Tehsil-Osiyan, District-Jodhpur, applied for drilling of tube well and installation of the machinery for operation thereof under D.D.P. Scheme introduced by D.R.D.A., Jodhpur, in the year 1988-89. It is stated that after completion of drilling and installation of machinery, tube well was made operational and handed over to the respondents and therefore, as per the D.D.P. Scheme, they were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 53,997/-. However, even after repeated demand being raised, the amount due was not deposited and therefore, the recovery proceedings were initiated against them under the provisions of Public Demand Recovery Act, 1952 ( for short "PDR Act"). 3. After giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents, vide order dated 9.6.04 passed by the Additional District Collector (Land Record), Jodhpur, an amount of Rs. 53,997/- was ordered to be recovered from the respondents under the PDR Act. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred an appeal under Section 23 A of PDR Act before the RAA, Jodhpur. The appeal was allowed by the RAA vide order dated 1.12.04 and accordingly, the order passed by the Additional District Collector (Land Record), Jodhpur, was set aside. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.04 passed by the RAA, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned Deputy Government Counsel contended that the orders passed by the RAA and the Board of Revenue are ex facie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that it is a matter of record that tube well and machinery were tested in presence of the respondents and the report was prepared in this regard on 3.4.89, which was duly signed by them and therefore, they were under an obligation to make payment as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme. Learned counsel submitted that the findings recorded by the RAA, affirmed by the Board of Revenue ignoring the material on record, are ex facie perverse. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the findings recorded by the RAA, affirmed by the Board of Revenue ignoring the material on record, are ex facie perverse. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Deputy Government Counsel and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the tube well in question was not successful and even according to the petitioner, it was partially successful. It is not disputed before this court that as per the condition no.7 of the agreement, the agriculturist was liable to deposit his share and margin money only if the tube well falls within the category of 'successful tube well'. There is nothing on record to suggest that the tube well was made fully operational and was handed over to the respondents. To the contrary, on the report prepared, the respondent-Smt. Rukma appended a note that she is not satisfied with the test conducted. It is also matter of record that on operation failure of the tube well, the respondents have undertaken drilling of their own tube well. In this view of the matter, the concurrent findings arrived at by the revenue courts, which remain the findings of the facts, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse 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 writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.Petition Dismissed. *******