JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 9.1.14 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby the reference made by the Additional Collector, Barmer under Section 232 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ( for short "the Act") has been accepted and consequently, the judgment and decree dated 19.5.70 passed by the Assistant Collector, Barmer in Revenue Suit No.150/70 declaring the petitioners as khatedar tenants of the land ad measuring 71 bighas 1 biswa, comprising khasra no.113 situated at village-Hathi Ki Dhani, Tehsil-Barmer, has been set aside. 2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that Sanga s/o Bula and Bhura s/o Sanga preferred a suit under Section 88 & 188 of the Act before the Assistant Collector, Barmer, claiming khatedari rights in respect of the land measuring 71 bighas 1 biswa comprising khasra no.113 and land measuring 7 bighas comprising khasra no.131 situated at village-Hathi Ki Dhani, Tehsil-Barmer. The plaintiffs claimed that they are in cultivatory possession of the land since Samvat 2012 i.e. at the time of commencement of the Act, however, on account of error on the part of the Settlement Officers, the land was recorded in the revenue record as gair mumkin oran. In the suit filed, the matter was proceeded ex parte against the State. The trial court observed that that the land in question is adjoining to the plaintiffs' land comprising khasra no.111 and the plaintiffs' dhani is sitauted in khasra no.112 and since the land in question partly remained in cultivatory possession of the petitioners from time to time, their claim for khatedari rights over the land in question, deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the suit preferred was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.70. On the application being made by the villagers, the respondent no.4 to 8 herein, claiming that the land in question being gair mumkin oran, no khatedari rights could accrue in favour of the petitioners in view of provisions of Section 16 of the Act, the Additional Collector, Barmer issued notices to the petitioners herein & Tehsildar, Barmer. The Tehsildar, Barmer, who was impleaded as non applicant in the application seeking reference, was later transposed as applicant on the application being made. 3. The Tehsildar, Barmer, who was impleaded as non applicant in the application seeking reference, was later transposed as applicant on the application being made. 3. After due consideration, the Additional Collector, Barmer vide order dated 20.2.06 made a reference to the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Assistant Collector, Barmer. The reference has been accepted by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned and the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Assistant Collector stands set aside. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was preferred by the petitioners claiming that their ancestor Sanga and Bhura were in possession of 22 sadikad land before the settlement and during the settlement, the land ad measuring 50 bighas and 16 biswas was entered in their name, however, the land measuring 71 bighas and 1 biswa was wrongly entered as gair mumkin oran . Learned counsel submitted that the suit was decreed by the revenue court after due consideration of the evidence on record and therefore, the Board of Revenue was not justified in interfering with the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioners after a lapse of about 43 years. Learned counsel submitted that in the middle of khasra no.113, the dhani of Sanga and Bhura is situated and khasra no.112 was entered in khatedari of Sanga at the time of settlement and khasra no.111 was also entered in their khatedari and thus, the land being of same chak, the land comprising khasra no.113 cannot be considered to be oran land. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners no.1 to 8 herein, are the bona fide purchasers for value and therefore, at this stage, they cannot be deprived of the khatedari rights into the land in question. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, by virtue of provisions of Section 16 (vi) of the Act, the gair mumkin oran land being the land held for public purpose/work of public utility, no khatedari rights could accrue in respect thereof. That apart, admittedly, there was no documentary evidence available showing that the plaintiffs Sanga and Bhura were in cultivatory possession of the land in question as on the date of commencement of the Act. That apart, admittedly, there was no documentary evidence available showing that the plaintiffs Sanga and Bhura were in cultivatory possession of the land in question as on the date of commencement of the Act. The Board found that for the first time, the possession of Sanga and Bhura was found in the Samvat year 2018 as trespasser. Thus, on the basis of the material on record, the findings arrived at by the Board of Revenue cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. It is pertinent to note that even the trial court while decreeing the suit has observed that the petitioners had cultivatory possession over the portion of the disputed land comprising khasra no.113 from time to time, thus, even otherwise, no khatedari rights could have been conferred upon the petitioners by virtue of provisions of Section 15 of the Act either. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the Board of Revenue has committed no error in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court granting khatedari rights in favour of the plaintiffs without their continuous cultivatory possession as tenant being proved and that too in respect of the land which is recorded in the revenue record as gair mumkin oran in respect whereof no khatedari right accrues by virtue of provisions of Section 16 of the Act. 7. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 8. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.Petition Dismissed. *******