JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 1.4.1989 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bayana, order dated 5.8.1989, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur and the order dated 9.11.1994, passed by the Board of Revenue. 2. Learned counsel submits that a suit for injunction was filed by the Temple. It was dismissed by the ACM vide its order dated 1.4.1989. The temple, Sitaramji preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and has been allowed. The petitioners, thereupon, approached Board of Revenue, however, their appeal was dismissed thus the present writ petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted that prior to the suit filed by the Temple, a suit was filed in regard to the same land. An order was thereupon passed on 21.11.1966. The second litigation was decided, vide order dated 5.8.1970, ignoring the earlier order. A suit for injunction was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the order therein has been maintained by the Board of Revenue. The land in dispute was in possession of the petitioner thus no injunction order could have been passed. The aforesaid was ignored by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue despite a finding by ACM court in favour of the petitioner. In view of above, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondents have opposed the petition. It is submitted that the land was recorded in the name of Temple, Sitaramji Maharaj. The previous two litigations were not against the Temple but between two private parties. The finding therein is not binding on the temple. The aforesaid issue has been considered by the Board of Revenue when argument of res judicata was raised by the petitioners. The order passed in the earlier two suits on 21.11.1966 and 5.8.1970 were not found to be binding or applicable against the temple. The land was recorded in the name of Murti Mandir, Sitaramji Maharaj and finding no evidence for possession, suit for injunction was decreed. The finding aforesaid may not be interfered. It is also stated that ACM Court had not considered the issue properly. The suit was dismissed as the issue No.3 was decided against the temple and it is only after relying the statement of PW-2 alone. The finding aforesaid may not be interfered. It is also stated that ACM Court had not considered the issue properly. The suit was dismissed as the issue No.3 was decided against the temple and it is only after relying the statement of PW-2 alone. The reference of the statement of PW-1 has also been given but finding about the possession was not properly recorded. The Revenue Appellate Authority interfered in the finding and after taking into consideration the revenue record and other aspects, which includes the appointment of the Receiver, the appeal preferred by the non-petitioners was allowed. There exists concurrent finding of fact of two revenue courts thus it may not be interfered. 5. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that land in dispute belongs to Murti Mandir Sitaramji Maharaj. The dispute however remains about possession and as to whether the temple was entitled to seek injunction when in earlier two litigations finding has been recorded against it. The perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue shows that the earlier two suits decided on 21.11.1966 and 5.8.1970 were between individual parties. The temple was not party therein. The finding recorded in those litigations was thus not binding on the temple. Learned Board of Revenue further found that the ACM Court failed to consider that land in dispute has been recorded in the name of temple and it has no jurisdiction to direct for constitution of the Trust. It was also found that a direction for appointment of Receiver could not have been given and, in any case, the injunction can be granted in favour of the temple. It is after referring the argument on which challenge to the order of Revenue Appellate Authority was made. The appeals preferred by both the parties were dismissed however the order to administer the temple through a trust was set aside. The temple Sitaramji Maharaj was found to be khatedar of the land, thus injunction was granted. 7. After going through the order passed by the Board of Revenue, I do not find any illegality therein because the petitioner even failed to show his possession in the land in dispute. The temple Sitaramji Maharaj was found to be khatedar of the land, thus injunction was granted. 7. After going through the order passed by the Board of Revenue, I do not find any illegality therein because the petitioner even failed to show his possession in the land in dispute. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition where challenge is made to the concerned finding of the Board of Revenue as well as Revenue Appellate Authority. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.