ORDER : 1. Appellants have filed the appeal challenging the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were in possession of the land-in-question. In fact, in the revenue record also the possession of the appellants was duly recorded. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the possession of the appellants was not recorded in the revenue record. 4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that it had been fairly admitted by the counsel for the appellants that the name of the appellants were not shown in the revenue record but it was alleged by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants were in possession of the land-in-question. 5. In this background, learned Single Judge rightly held that mere possession did not create rights to claim Khatedari under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 6. Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed.