JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously enough allow the writ petition and by appropriate writ order or direction quash and set-aside the perverse and illegal order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Balesar on Dated 24.06.2014 (Annexure-6), order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur on dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure-8) and the order passed by the Revenue Board Rajasthan, Ajmer on dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure-10). Any other order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the respondent no.1-plaintiff instituted a suit (registered as Revenue Original Suit no.41/2008) before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Balesar on 08.04.2008 against the petitioners and the other respondents, seeking correction in the revenue records, declaration, partition and permanent injunction in respect of an ancestral property. 2.1. In the said suit, it was stated that Khasra Nos. 1415, 1416, 1417, 1547 and 1548 in Village Gopalpura, Tehsil Balesar, Jodhpur are the ancestral property of the petitioners; it was also stated in the suit, that after settlement, though the revenue officer entered the name of the respondent no.1-plaintiff in the revenue records pertaining to Khasra Nos. 1415, 1416 & 1417 but mistakenly, did not make such entry in respect of Khasra Nos. 1547 and 1548. The petitioners filed the written statement, and the trial accordingly commenced. 2.2. The learned SDO also passed an order under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, whereby the Tehsildar, Shergarh was directed to submit a site report (mauka report) of the land in question. The present petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC before the learned SDO for setting aside the order of ex parte proceeding. The learned SDO vide the impugned judgment & decree dated 24.06.2014 allowed the suit and respondent no.1-plaintiff was declared as khatedar of the land in question. 2.3. The present petitioners preferred an appeal (registered as Appeal/Decree/Jodhpur/064/2014) under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Jodhpur on 19.09.2014 against the impugned judgment & decree dated 24.06.2014. 2.3. The present petitioners preferred an appeal (registered as Appeal/Decree/Jodhpur/064/2014) under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Jodhpur on 19.09.2014 against the impugned judgment & decree dated 24.06.2014. The learned RAA vide the impugned judgment & decree dated 27.07.2015 dismissed the said appeal, while upholding the impugned judgment & decree dated 24.06.2014 passed by the learned SDO. 2.4. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petitioners preferred an appeal (registered as Appeal/Decree/TA/4593/2015/Jodhpur) under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer; but the learned BoR vide the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2022 dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned SDO initiated an ex-parte proceeding and also closed the cross-examination of the petitioners, and therefore, the impugned judgments are highly illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned revenue authorities below relied only on the Tehsildar’s report for deciding the matter in question; but it is settled law that the plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) has to prove his possession over the disputed land by himself through his own evidence, and therefore, on that count also, the impugned judgments passed in the favour of the respondent no.1-plaintiff are not justified in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the land in question was the ancestral property of the respondent, but due to mistake committed by the revenue officer concerned, during the settlement, the property was not recorded in the name of the respondent. It was further submitted that the Tehsildar, Shergargh submitted the site report (mauka report), which clearly reveals possession of the respondent over the land in question. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned SDO, after giving several opportunities to the petitioners, passed the impugned judgment & decree, and the same was rightly uphold by the learned RAA and BoR. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned SDO, after giving several opportunities to the petitioners, passed the impugned judgment & decree, and the same was rightly uphold by the learned RAA and BoR. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the respondent no.1-plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit against the present petitioners before the learned SDO and the same was allowed by the learned SDO vide the impugned judgment & decree dated 24.06.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the appeals before the RAA and the learned BoR, but the same were dismissed vide the impugned judgment & decree dated 27.07.2015 and the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2022 respectively, while upholding the impugned judgment & decree passed by the learned SDO. 7. This Court further observes that the learned SDO directed the Tehsildar under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for inspecting and submitting the site report (mauka report) regarding the land in question, and the report so submitted clearly reveals that the Patwari and the Land Record Officer themselves visited the land in question and prepared the mauka report, while concluding that the respondent has ancestral possession over the land in question. 8. This Court also observes that the learned SDO gave several opportunities but the petitioners did not turn up. Moreover, there are concurrent findings recorded by the three learned revenue authorities below, which are well reasoned and thus, do not warrant any interference by this Court in the instant petition. 9. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.