JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. The petitioner Rajasthan Housing Board (RHB) has challenged the judgment dated 4-9-2012 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer (hereinafter `the Board') dismissing second appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter `the Act of 1956') against the judgment dated 7-4-2010 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur dismissing the first appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 27-4-2009 passed by the Assistant Collector Jaipur City, whereby the suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter `the plaintiffs') for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of entries was decreed. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a revenue suit before the Assistant Collector Jaipur City for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of entries with regard to land in khasra No.24 admeasuring 0.05 hectare and khasra No.25 admeasuring 2.13 hectares (old No.11 admeasuring 8 bighas 7 biswas) situate in village Shri Govindpura Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur impleading the petitioner Rajasthan Housing Board and the Jaipur Development Authority Jaipur as defendants. It was stated in the plaint that the ancestor of the plaintiffs Radha Chand was the recorded khatedar of the suit land prior to Svt.1987. During the settlement proceedings in Svt.1987 the land of khasra No.11 admeasuring 8 bighas 7 biswas was unauthorisedly and wrongly recorded as pasture land. During the course of settlement proceedings in the year 1989, the land of khasra No.11 was renumbered as khasra No.25 admeasuring 0.05 hectare and khasra No.25 admeasuring 2.13 hectares. 3. It was stated that on 20-8-2007 when the officers of defendant JDA reached to measure the land of khasra No.24 and 25, then on his objections to the measurement, the plaintiffs were informed that the land belonged to defendant RHB. On enquiries made the plaintiff came to know that during settlement proceedings in Svt.2015 the land in dispute was indeed recorded as pasture albeit unlawfully to the exclusion of the khatedari of the plaintiffs' predecessor in interest. It was stated that the land in dispute had at all time remained of the plaintiff and his ancestors as khatedars, suitable declaration, correction of entries accordingly and injunction was sought. 4. Notices on the plaint were issued to the defendants on 29-5- 2008. Despite service of notice on RHB on 1-7-2008, no one appeared. Therefore ex-parte proceedings were initiated against RHB. Similarly despite service of notice on JDA none appeared on 15-9-2008. 4. Notices on the plaint were issued to the defendants on 29-5- 2008. Despite service of notice on RHB on 1-7-2008, no one appeared. Therefore ex-parte proceedings were initiated against RHB. Similarly despite service of notice on JDA none appeared on 15-9-2008. Ex-parte proceedings were also initiated against JDA. The trial court appointed the Girdawar Halka Sanganer as Commissioner for site-inspection. A report was submitted by him on 19-12-2008. It was reported that out of total land of khasra No.11 about 3 bigha 7 biswa land was in possession of the RHB having earlier acquired, and remaining 5 bighas land detailed in the suit was in possession of the plaintiffs. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the plaintiffs oral and documentary evidence as also the commissioner's report dated 19- 12-2008 the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 27-4-2009 decreed the plaintiffs' suit and declared them to be recorded tenant of khasra No.24 and 25. It also so directed for correction of entries in the revenue record accordingly to the extent of plaintiff's possession over 5 bigha in issue. As far as the land 3 bigha 7 biswa was concerned, it was held to have been wrongly acquired for RHB, without notice to the plaintiffs. It was held that the plaintiffs were entitled for compensation for the said land. The defendants were injuncted from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the remaining 5 bigha land of khasra No.25. 6. The judgment and decree dated 27-4-2009 was challenged in first appeal under Section 223 of the Act of 1956 by the defendant JDA before the Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur on 27-7-2009. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 7-4-2010 on the ground of delay. A second appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1956 then came to be filed by the JDA before the Board, which also came to be dismissed on 4-9-2012. 7. Now the RHB has challenged the said judgments and decree dated 27-4-2009 affirmed vide judgment dated 7-4-2010 by the Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur and vide judgment dated 4-9- 2012 by the Board. 8. Heard counsel for the defendant RHB and perused the material available on record. 9. 7. Now the RHB has challenged the said judgments and decree dated 27-4-2009 affirmed vide judgment dated 7-4-2010 by the Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur and vide judgment dated 4-9- 2012 by the Board. 8. Heard counsel for the defendant RHB and perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the material available on record indicates that the defendant RHB has miserably failed to show any cause as to why it had not taken part in the proceedings taken against it by the trial court and remained ex-parte. The RHB has also failed to show any reason as to why it has not challenged the judgment and decree dated 27-4-2009 by way of first appeal or second appeal before the courts below-entailing the decree of the trial court against it to be rendered final. 10. In my considered opinion, the writ petition at instance of RHB cannot be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, findings on which the impugned judgments are based are of facts based on appreciation of evidence on record. Counsel for the petitioner RHB has not been able to make out a case of the impugned judgments suffering from any perversity or misdirection in law to warrant interference by this court under Article and 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. I find no force in the petition. The same is dismissed.