JUDGMENT 1. The instant special appeal has been preferred by the petitioners, being the villagers of Gram Junda, Tehsil Railmagra, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.10.2018 passed by learned Single Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5562/2017, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. 2. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by Mr. M.S. Purohit, learned counsel representing the petitioners, and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the pleadings available on record. 3. Mr. Purohit vehemently and fervently urged that the land in question was recorded in the revenue records as a public land and thus, the same could not have been mutated in the name of the respondents. He further urged that the Revenue court had passed an injunction in favour of the petitioners and there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to have reversed the same. As per him, learned Single Bench of this court also fell in error while failing to consider the significant issue regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to interfere in an order of temporary injunction. He, thus, urged that the appeal deserves to be accepted and the impugned judgments passed by learned Single Bench as well as the Board of Revenue deserve to be reversed and the order of temporary injunction passed in favour of the petitioner by the SDO, Railmagra should be restored. 4. We have considered the facts and circumstances available on record. The specific plea of the respondents before the learned Single Bench and the Board of Revenue was that they were Khatedar tenants of the land in question. The agreement, on the basis whereof, the petitioners stake a claim over the land in question was unregistered one and thus, could not have been considered to confer a valid title upon the petitioners so as to give them right to interfere in the respondents peaceful possession on the suit land. We put a pertinent question to Mr. M.S. Purohit in reference to the finding recorded at para No. 5 of the impugned order dated 08.10.2018, wherein learned Single Bench held that admittedly, the land in question is recorded in the Revenue records as Khatedari land of respondents. Mr. We put a pertinent question to Mr. M.S. Purohit in reference to the finding recorded at para No. 5 of the impugned order dated 08.10.2018, wherein learned Single Bench held that admittedly, the land in question is recorded in the Revenue records as Khatedari land of respondents. Mr. Purohit though orally submitted that the finding is factually incorrect and perverse, but when confronted with the pleadings in the appeal; particularly, para No. 3 thereof, wherein, it is categorically admitted that Banjar land situated in the area of Railmagra at Khata No. 180, Aaraji No. 1940, Rakba 536 Bigha 10 Biswa is recorded in the Revenue record in the name of the defendants, he expressed his unconditional apology for the mis-statement of fact. 5. Having considered the admitted factual position referred to supra, we are of the opinion that since the respondents are Khatedar tenants of the land in question, the petitioner cannot stake a claim thereon on the basis of an unregistered agreement. Manifestly, no interference can be permitted in the proprietary rights of the respondents over the land in question. 6. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in setting aside the order of temporary injunction passed by the SDO Railmagra in relation to the suit land and as a consequence, the learned Single Bench of this court was perfectly justified in affirming the order of the Board of Revenue. Otherwise also, since the learned Single Bench passed the order rejecting the writ petition while exercising the supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we are of the firm opinion that no interference can be caused in such order while exercising the appellate jurisdiction of this court. 7. In view of the fact that the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Bench of this court have recorded concurrent findings on facts while deciding the matter against the petitioners, this court would be loathe to permit the petitioner to raise disputed questions of facts so as to entertain the instant appeal. The impugned order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Bench does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever warranting interference. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.