JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against judgment dated 17.3.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer ('Board'), whereby, the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner against Judgment dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh ('RAA') has been dismissed. The RAA had in turn dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment dated 30.6.2004 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Kapasan ('S.D.O.'), whereby, the suit filed by the petitioner was partly decreed.The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of Khatedari, correction in the revenue record and injunction pertaining to land comprised in Araji Nos. 495, 496 and 774/460; it was, inter aha, claimed that on account ot partition Amba and Mangu, Mangu sold his land ad measuring 3 Bigha situated in Khasra No. 496 to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.7.1977; it was claimed that the petitioner was having possession over 6 Bigha of land comprised in Araji No. 495 since 16.7.1977 and was being cultivated by him and his family; it was alleged that the private respondents wanted to grab the property in dispute, for which, criminal proceedings were initiated by the petitioner; the petitioner prayed that he may be declared Khatedar of land ad measuring 3 Bigha situated in Khasra No. 496 being its purchaser and on account of being in adverse possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 495 admeasuring 6 Bigha and in Khasra No. 774/460 ad measuring 14 Biswa. 2. A written statement was filed and the suit was resisted. 3. The S.D.O. vide his Judgment and Decree dated 30.6.2004 partly decreed the suit and declared the petitioner Khatedar of the land situated in Khasra No. 496 ad measuring 3 Bigha, but dismissed the suit qua rest of the land, wherein, petitioner sought declaration based on adverse possession. 4. The Appeals filed by the petitioner before the RAA and the Board were also 1 dismissed. 5. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has produced two documents being a report of the Tehsildar dated 21/23.3.1971 and an agreement dated 21.1.1973, inter alia, claiming that the said documents show ownership and possessory rights over the land in dispute since long and that the documents could not be produced earlier as they were found on the eve of Holi while cleaning their home. 6. 6. The respondent No. 1 has filed caveat and has denied and disputed the averments made in the Writ Petition and has disputed the right of the petitioner qua the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 495 and 774/460 based on adverse possession. 7. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the three authorities below were not justified in dismissing the suit/appeal filed by the petitioner as it was proved on record that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question and with reference to the documents filed as Annexures-8 and 9 for the first time before this Court, it was claimed that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question and had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent disputed the averments made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and it was submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the three authorities below do not call for any interference under extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court; the S.D.O. has recorded a categoric finding, which finding has been upheld by the RAA and the Board; the very fact that the petitioner now relies on the so called agreement to sale executed in the year 1973, demolishes the theory of adverse possession and, therefore, the orders impugned do not call for any interference. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 10. The petitioner claimed right in respect of land ad measuring 3 Bigha comprised in Araji No. 496 based on Sale Deed dated 16.7.1977 and qua 6 Bigha 14 Biswa comprised in Khasra Nos. 495 and 774/460 based on adverse possession; the RAA came to the conclusion that while the petitioner-plaintiff was entitled for declaration based on the registered sale deed qua the land comprised in Khasra No. 496, he has failed to prove his adverse possession qua the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 495 and 774/460. 11. The petitioner filed Appeal and the respondent filed cross-objections and both were rejected by the RAA, whereafter, the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Board as noticed hereinbefore. 12. 495 and 774/460. 11. The petitioner filed Appeal and the respondent filed cross-objections and both were rejected by the RAA, whereafter, the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Board as noticed hereinbefore. 12. There is substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent that the very fact that now the petitioner relies on the document Annexure-9 an agreement to sale, though existence whereof is denied by the private respondents, necessarily demolishes the plea of adverse possession raised by the petitioner. 13. Besides the above, the fact that all the three authorities have concurrently found against the petitioner qua the issue of adverse possession and learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by three authorities below, the same do not call for any interference by this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The Stay Petition is also dismissed.No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******