JUDGMENT : Mr. Alok Sharma, J. Under challenge is the judgment dated 9-2-2016 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board') setting aside the judgment/decree dated 20-1-2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur (hereinafter 'the RAA') and restoring the judgment/decree dated 21-5-2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Kotputli. 2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff' now dead and represented by his legal representative) filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent defendant Kajod (hereinafter 'the defendant', also now dead and represented by his legal representatives) under Sections 188 and 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955') in respect of land in khasra No.7 admeasuring 0.92 are, No.19 admeasuring 1.24 areas and No.21 admeasuring 3.80 area in village Pachodala Tehsil Kotputli, as also for a declaration that the sale dated 16-10-1999 in favour of defendants No.2&3 by the defendant No.1 was void ab initio. The suit was filed on the basis of the entry made by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the record of rights during the settlement operations on 28-7-1978 recognising and consequent to the plaintiff's purported possession since Svt.2005 (i.e. 1938). It was alleged that despite not having any khatedari rights in the suit land following the registered sale deed on 3-7-1989, conveying his khatedari to the plaintiff, the defendant had effected an unauthorised sale on 16-10-1999 in favour of Ramesh Chand and Rohitash which was null and void and deserving to be so declared. It was prayed that the plaintiff be declared to be the khatedar of the suit land. The plaintiff in the suit relied upon various documents i.e. parcha lagan of Svt.2005, Girdawari slips of Svt. 2012 and 2031, Pass Book of Svt.2046, endorsement in his favour in the record of rights in Svt. 2037 to 2056, and sale deed dated 3-7- 1989. 3. A written statement of denial was filed by the defendant. It was stated that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land prior to Svt.2005 or any time thereafter. In fact the suit land was at all material time in the khatedari and possession of the defendant's father Sadhu Ram and so recorded in revenue records i.e. Jamabandi of Svt.2020, 2024, 2008 (i.e.1963, 1967, 1979). It was stated that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land prior to Svt.2005 or any time thereafter. In fact the suit land was at all material time in the khatedari and possession of the defendant's father Sadhu Ram and so recorded in revenue records i.e. Jamabandi of Svt.2020, 2024, 2008 (i.e.1963, 1967, 1979). However in the year 1978 in collusion with Assistant Settlement Officer in the course of settlement proceedings, the plaintiff was without jurisdiction in wholly illegal manner shown by a purported endorsement as khatedar of the suit land. It was stated that the Assistant Settlement Officer had no authority to change the revenue entries in the record of rights but only could repeat them. The settlement department was duty bound to record the preexisting khatedari of Sadhu Ram, the father of the defendant No.1. It was further submitted that in any event the endorsement by the ASO in the record of rights was unsigned and therefore of no effect. Relying upon the documents Jamabandis of Svt. 2020, 2024, 2028 and Girdawaris of Svt. 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2033 it was prayed that suit be dismissed. A counter claim was filed against the plaintiff praying that name of plaintiff be removed from the record of rights and entries in the revenue record qua the suit land be corrected reflecting the defendant's khatedari. 4. The court of SDO Kotputli on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed four issues:- ^^1- vk;k vkjkth [kljk uacj 129 ckds xzke iNksMkyk dks oknh laor 2005 ls cgSfl;r dk'rdkj dkfct gS\ 2- vk;k mDr fookfnr vkjkth dk ipkZ esa @7 oknh fgLlk crkSj [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj dk fjdkWMZ\ 3- vk;k oknh us &8&793 dks izfroknh 3 yxk;r 4 dk @7 fgLlk viuh [kljk uacj 8 o 19 tfj;s jftLVMZ i= [kjhn dj fy;k\ 4- vk;k izfroknh dtksM+ ds nkSjku nkok vkjkth eqrnfo;k tks izfroknh jes'k dqekj o jksfgrk'k tkV dks cspku dj fn;k vkxkeh fjlhojksa esa gh fodz; i= fu"izzHkkoh gS fodz; i= fcuk vf/kdkj rFkk cxSj dCtk gksus ls 'kwU; o csvlj gS\** 5. On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiff. However based on the registered sale deed dated 3-7-1989, whereby some portion of the land (1/2 of 3/4 in khasra No.7 admeasuring 0.92 ares, and khasra No.19 admeasuring 1.24 ares) was conveyed for valuable consideration of Rs. On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiff. However based on the registered sale deed dated 3-7-1989, whereby some portion of the land (1/2 of 3/4 in khasra No.7 admeasuring 0.92 ares, and khasra No.19 admeasuring 1.24 ares) was conveyed for valuable consideration of Rs. 23,500/- by defendant in favour of the plaintiff, issue No.3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff's suit was partially decreed as aforesaid by the SDO vide judgment and decree dated 21-5-2002. 6. On appeal by the plaintiff to the extent of his aggrievement with the judgment and decree dated 21-5-2002, the RAA Jaipur vide judgment and decree dated 20-1-2006 set it aside to the extent it entailed dismissal of plaintiff's suit and allowed the appeal. The entire claim set up by the plaintiff in his suit before the SDO Kotputli was decreed. A second appeal to the Board followed at the instance of defendant. The Board vide judgment and decree dated 9-2-2016 set aside the RAA's judgment dated 20-1-2006 and restored that of the SDO Kotputli dated 21-5-2002. Hence this petition. 7. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma appearing with Ms. Alankrata Sharma for the petitioner submitted that the statement of witnesses before the trial court were overlooked by the SDO and the Board and the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses were not considered properly, nor lawfully appreciated. So done it would have been clear that the plaintiff had been in continuous possession of the suit land for decades prior to the settlement operations of Svt.2037-2056, consequent to which during settlement proceedings in the year 1978 the name of the plaintiff was rightly entered in the record of rights as a khatedar. It was submitted that the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act as to regularity of official acts ought to attach to the action of the ASO in entering the plaintiff's name in record of rights and there was nothing on record by way of rebuttal to establish that the plaintiff was not in actual cultivatory possession of the suit land or not entitled to khatedari rights based thereon. It was further submitted that no evidence was adduced by the defendant before the trial court that the ASO did not have the power/ jurisdiction to alter an entry in record of rights. It was further submitted that no evidence was adduced by the defendant before the trial court that the ASO did not have the power/ jurisdiction to alter an entry in record of rights. It was also submitted that the Board committed a gross illegality and acted beyond its jurisdiction in second appeal filed by the defendant Kajod, by entertaining it after the period of limitation for filing the appeal had expired, as there was no sufficient cause preferred to justify the exercise of the discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that broad brush dictum for condonation of delay i.e. "the client cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of an Advocate" cannot be mechanically resorted to for taking away the valuable rights of the plaintiff in terms of the judgment/decree dated 20-1-2006 passed by RAA, which had in the meantime attained finality. 8. Per contra, Mr. R.K. Daga, appearing for the defendant submitted that the whole case set up by the plaintiff all through from before the SDO upto the Board was absolutely false, founded upon the absolutely unauthorized and illegal act of the ASO in the year 1978 in seeking to endorse the name of plaintiff as khatedar of the suit land in the record of rights in the course of settlement operations. It was submitted that an entry in the record of rights cannot be altered by the settlement department in the course of settlement operations. The Settlement Department is under a legal duty to only record pre-existing entries in settlement operations undertaken by them. They have no jurisdiction to alter entries in record of rights and that can be only in accordance with law on the basis of a judicial order, an order of allotment by the State Government in respect of sivai chak land or succession. The plaintiff did not qualify under any of the aforesaid heads, to be recorded/endorsed as khatedar of the suit land. The plaintiff did not qualify under any of the aforesaid heads, to be recorded/endorsed as khatedar of the suit land. It was submitted that in the case of Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan [1993 RRD 44] it has been held that the settlement department has no right to change the classification of land or rights of the parties recorded as tenants in the record of rights at the relevant time without an order of a competent court, or under other lawful authority and where it was contrarily done, the act of the settlement department is void, ab initio and it would not be even necessary for the khatedar to take proceedings for having such alteration without jurisdiction set aside, seek a declaration of the pre-existing kahtedari rights or a direction for correction of entries. It was submitted that in this view of the settled legal position, the very foundation of plaintiff's suit as laid before the SDO on the basis of entries/endorsement in record of rights in his favour in the course of settlement proceedings by ASO was unsustainable, without force, baseless, as well as merit-less and merely a speculative resort to the salutary processes of the Revenue Courts. It was further submitted that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and issues No.1 and 2 in regard thereto were rightly decided by SDO as also the Board against him holding that despite all his claims, the plaintiff from his evidence laid, both documentary and oral, had not been able to establish that he was in possession of the suit land particularly when the suit was laid and at any time thereafter. It was submitted that even otherwise the claim of the plaintiff over the suit land was not based on the plea of adverse possession, which in any event does not obtain for conferment of khatedari rights. On the issue of the Board having condoned the delay in filing the appeal, it was submitted that the Board having exercised its discretion for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, interference therewith under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is wholly unwarranted. On the issue of the Board having condoned the delay in filing the appeal, it was submitted that the Board having exercised its discretion for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, interference therewith under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is wholly unwarranted. It was further submitted that in any event the Apex Court has held in catena of cases that the expression "sufficient cause" as set out in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in taking legal remedies is to be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice and where no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide of the appellant is made out, delay ought to be condoned. 9. On the merits of the case, Mr. Daga submitted that khasra No.10 admeasuring 3 bigha 15 biswa, 19 admeasuring 17 bigha 1 biswa were in the khatedari of one Sadhu s/o Geeda in the record of rights in Svt.2033. In the course of subsequent settlement proceedings the aforesaid khasras came to be re-numbered as khasra No.7, 19 and 21 as evident from Milan Kshetrafal (Annexure R-3). 10. On Sadhu's death the land was mutated in favour of his son Kajod i.e. newly constituted khasra No.7 admeasuring 0.92 hectare, 19 admeasured 1.26 hectare and 21 admeasuring 3.80 hectare. Kajod then sold ¼ of his share in khasra No.7 and 19 village Pachodala to Prabhat and Sugna, thereupon ¾ share in khasra No.7, 19 remained in his khatedari. The whole of khasra 21 admeasuring 3.80 hectare remained in his khatedari. This was reflected in settlement proceedings of Svt.2037-2056. Thereafter the defendant Kajod vide registered sale deed that 3-7-1989 did indeed sell ½ share out of his ¾ share in khasra No.7 and 19 to plaintiff Bhagwana. The sale deed in issue categorically recorded that only half of Kajod's share in khasra No.7 measuring 0.92 hectare and 19 measuring 1.26 hectare were being conveyed to the plaintiff Bhagwana on consideration of Rs.23,500/-. No portion of land of khasra No.21 was sold under the sale deed dated 3-7-1989 by defendant Kajod in favour of plaintiff Bhagwana or otherwise. The sale deed in issue categorically recorded that only half of Kajod's share in khasra No.7 measuring 0.92 hectare and 19 measuring 1.26 hectare were being conveyed to the plaintiff Bhagwana on consideration of Rs.23,500/-. No portion of land of khasra No.21 was sold under the sale deed dated 3-7-1989 by defendant Kajod in favour of plaintiff Bhagwana or otherwise. Counsel submitted that all the aforesaid facts have been taken into consideration by the SDO as also the Board in holding that plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed under Sections 88 and 188 of the Act of 1955 seeking declaration of his khatedari in respect of ¾ share of land of khasra No.7, 19 as also 21 in village Pachhadola was baseless and liable to be dismissed. The Board vide impugned dated 9-2-2016 has rightly upheld the Judgment and decree dated 21-5-2002 passed by the SDO and quashed and set aside the RAA's judgment and decree dated 20-1-2006. It was submitted that findings of facts arrived at by the SDO on an objective consideration of the evidence on record and upheld by the Board brook no interference by this court exercising superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Heard. Considered. 12. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which the present writ petition seeks to invoke does not extend to interfere with the findings of facts when they are based on appreciation of evidence and not vitiated by palpable perversity or misdirection in law. In the case of Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan [ (2005)3 SCC 193 ], the Apex Court has held that when findings are neither perverse nor based on "no evidence" or evidence legally unacceptable, but on appreciation of evidence by the subordinate court, no interference is warranted at the hand of the High Court. In the case of Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan [ (2005)3 SCC 193 ], the Apex Court has held that when findings are neither perverse nor based on "no evidence" or evidence legally unacceptable, but on appreciation of evidence by the subordinate court, no interference is warranted at the hand of the High Court. In the case of Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj [ (2008)9 SCC 1 ], it was held by the Apex Court that a writ court can not review, re-appreciate or reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a lower court is based, nor can the court exercising power under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India correct errors of fact or even of law and substitute its decision for that of the court below unless the order suffers from jurisdictional error, patent illegality or ex-facie perversity. In the case of Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar [ (2011)5 SCC 607 ], it was held by the Apex Court that a court exercising its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India can interfere only in the event of patent error in the impugned order/judgment apparent on face of proceedings, such as when the impugned order/judgment has been passed on ignorance of law or in complete disregard thereof entailing gross injustice. The settled law thus is that the writ/superintending jurisdiction of the High Court is different from appellate/revisional jurisdiction. It extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals or authorities in excess of their jurisdiction or where ex-facie grave miscarriage of justice is made out. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal court or authority, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal/authority/court has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the judgment would be perverse, unsustainable for being vitiated by a misdirection in law. 13. Within the limited scope of this court exercising its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India over judgments of the lower courts/tribunals/authorities, I am of the considered view that there is absolutely no force in the writ petition. 13. Within the limited scope of this court exercising its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India over judgments of the lower courts/tribunals/authorities, I am of the considered view that there is absolutely no force in the writ petition. The entire case of the plaintiff was based on the purported entry/endorsement in record of rights made to his benefit during the course of settlement proceedings in the year 1978. In the record of rights pertaining to settlement of Svt.2037-2056 even while the defendant Kajod was recorded as khatedar of ¾ share of agricultural land in khasra No.7, 19 and whole of khasra No.21 and Prabhat and Sugna were recorded as khatedar of ¼ share in khasra No.7 and 19, an entry/endorsement was unauthorisedly made, allegedly based on ASO's order dated 28-7-1978 purportedly recording the plaintiff as khatedar of 1/2 of ¾ share of Kajod in khasra No.7 and 19. The said entry/endorsement was however, of no legal effect for multiple reasons. One, admittedly the endorsement made in settlement proceedings in Jamabandi of 2037-2056 was unsigned by the competent authority. This fact is borne out from the record. Further, in terms of settled law, the settlement department has no legal authority to alter pre-existing entries in the record of rights. The petitioner has not disclosed how else he came into khatedari of the suit land earlier recorded in Sandhya's (father of Kajod) khatedari i.e. order of a competent court, allotment by the State or succession. Further what is then finally destructive of the plaintiff's case of his khatedari rights in the suit land is the registered sale-deed dated 3- 7-1989, where under the plaintiff admitted to having purchased half share out of the ¾ share of defendant Kajod in khasra no.7 and 19 only. No part of defendant Kajod's right in khasra No.21 were conveyed to the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 3-7-1989 or otherwise. 14. In the circumstances the case of the plaintiff under sections 88 and 188 of the Act of 1955 before the SDO was baseless in so far as he claimed khatedari on the basis of the alleged entry/endorsement in the settlement jamabandi of Svt.2037-2056 unauthorisedly made by the ASO and yet not signed. 14. In the circumstances the case of the plaintiff under sections 88 and 188 of the Act of 1955 before the SDO was baseless in so far as he claimed khatedari on the basis of the alleged entry/endorsement in the settlement jamabandi of Svt.2037-2056 unauthorisedly made by the ASO and yet not signed. The plaintiff thus not having any khatedari rights in khasra No.7 and 19 on the basis of said entry/endorsement or proof of cultivatory possession, the inevitable corollary in law was that he could not claim injunction against the true owner i.e. the defendant Kajod recorded as khatedar in the record of rights and in possession. The SDO had come to a conclusion on objective consideration of the evidence on record that the plaintiff had not been able to prove his possession over the land in the khatedari of the defendant Kajod in khasra No.7 and 19. And this has been upheld by a well reasoned judgment passed by the Board negating, upsetting and setting aside the finding to the contrary by RAA in his judgment and decreed dated 20-1-2006. 15. In the circumstances, I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.