ORDER : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order and judgment dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer vide which the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.03.2006 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 12.01.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sanchore was dismissed. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sanchore vide its order dated 12.01.2004 had allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 2. A Gair Mumkin Rasta existed earlier in Khasra No. 853 prior to the settlement proceedings. During the settlement proceedings, the Rasta was deleted from the Map prepared after the settlement proceedings. Aggrieved, the respondents filed an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sanchore stating therein that Khasra No. 853(old) of village Bicchawadi measuring 8 Bigha which was duly recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta has been deleted and the same has been added and entered into the Khatedari of new Khasra Nos. 748, 750 and 751. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sanchore vide its order 17.11.1999 rectified the same and duly entered the same in the revenue record accordingly as per mark A and B of the Map. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.1999, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. The said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 10.08.2001 and the order dated 17.11.1999 was set aside and a direction was passed to hear and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. After the matter was remanded, the same was heard afresh. The petitioners filed their reply and after hearing the parties, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sanchore allowed the application of the respondents vide its order dated 12.01.2004 and ordered that the Gair Mumkin Rasta which was earlier falling in old Khasra Nos. 853 be now shown in the revenue record from Mark "A" to "B" in the present Khasra Nos. 748, 750 and 751. The petitioners once again challenged the said order dated 12.01.2004 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. However, this time too the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur on 21.03.2006. 853 be now shown in the revenue record from Mark "A" to "B" in the present Khasra Nos. 748, 750 and 751. The petitioners once again challenged the said order dated 12.01.2004 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. However, this time too the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur on 21.03.2006. The petitioners challenged the said order by way of an appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1956 before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue too dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed against the concurrent findings of the courts below. 3. While praying for setting aside the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Land Records Officer can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 only when there is correction or clerical errors. In the present case, the khatedari rights of the petitioners have been cancelled and instead, the land has been recorded as way which has resulted in reducing the area of the land of the petitioners and that Section 136 of the Act of 1956 cannot be used to draw out a path or way, as the case may be. It is further stated that the said way, as projected by the respondents, never existed and the respondents took advantage of the old trace Map entries. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents while vehemently opposing the petition submitted that the Rasta was a Gair Mumkin Rasta, hence, no khatedari rights accrue to the petitioners and relied on the judgment rendered by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhat vs. The Board of Revenue, 1986 (2) WLN 680 in support of the same. 5. Heard. 6. The argument that the New Khasra No. 746 is out of Old Khasra Nos. 214, 202 and 211 and that no area of land has been shown against the Khasra Nos. 202 and 211 but only of Khasra No. 214, meaning thereby that the said Khasra No. 214 (Old) i.e. the way was not in existence at the place shown in the Old Trace Map but it was in existence at the place shown in the New Trace Map going through Khasra Nos. 202 and 211 cannot be sustained. 7. 202 and 211 but only of Khasra No. 214, meaning thereby that the said Khasra No. 214 (Old) i.e. the way was not in existence at the place shown in the Old Trace Map but it was in existence at the place shown in the New Trace Map going through Khasra Nos. 202 and 211 cannot be sustained. 7. It is a consistent finding of the courts below that as per the original Map before consolidation the Rasta which was on Khasra No. 853 and in between khasra No. 212 and 619 towards North of Khasra No. 628 should have been shown in South of Khasra Nos. 750 and 751 in the Map prepared after the settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show as to how the Rasta which was existed before consolidation was removed from the Map so prepared during the consolidation proceedings. There is no order on record to show as to how the said 'Rasta' was extinguished. The same could have only be done in pursuance to a decree or an order is passed by a competent court of jurisdiction. No such order is on record. Hence, the application was moved by the respondents for correction of the same under Section 136 of the Act of 1956. Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act reads as under: "136. Correction of errors - The Land Records Officer may, at any time, correct or cause to be corrected in the prescribed manner any clerical errors and any errors which the parties interested admit to have been made in the record of rights or register, or which a Revenue Officer may notice during the course of his inspection in any register: Provided that when any error is noticed by a Revenue Officer in any record of rights during the course of his inspection, no error shall be corrected unless a notice to show cause has been given to the parties." 8. The said correction was done after following the due process of law by perusing the Milan area and Map prepared during the settlement which was duly verified by the Tehsildar. On the other hand, the Settlement Department had no power to suo moto change the Revenue record. The said correction was done after following the due process of law by perusing the Milan area and Map prepared during the settlement which was duly verified by the Tehsildar. On the other hand, the Settlement Department had no power to suo moto change the Revenue record. Hence, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sanchore who corrected the illegality under Section 136 of the Act of 1956. 9. Even otherwise, the petitioners have lost from all the courts below. In case, concurrent findings of facts is based on appreciation and analysis of the evidence on record, the said findings should not be interfered by the High Court in its exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It cannot assume the powers of an appeal. 10. About half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Negendra Nath Bora vs. Commissioner of Hills, AIR 1958 SC 398 has laid down that the powers under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts of law function within the limits in its authority or jurisdiction. The said principle was then followed in the case of Nibaran Chandra Bag vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 12 held that: "......jurisdiction conferred (under Article 227) is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority...." 11. Similarly, in the case of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim, (1983) 4 SCC 566 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Para 7, observed: "7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited 'to seeing that an inferior court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority', and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. In this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him nor in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decisions." 9. Later on in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court had again observed, in Para 9 that: "9.......The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes." 12. In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out to interfere in the orders passed by the courts below. 13. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.