JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been listed in the category of ‘orders’. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- “1. The judgment and decree dt.8-11-2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur (Annex.6), as also, the judgment dt.12-9-2008 passed by the learned Board of Revenue (Annex.8) may very kindly be quashed and set aside with all their natural consequences; 2. The judgment and decree dt.8-6-2006 (Annex.4) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Girwa may very kindly be upheld and maintained with all its natural consequences; and 3. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Shri Bhagwanlal and others filed a suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter the Act of 1955) before the Sub Divisional Officer, Girwa, District Udaipur for correction in revenue entries and for entering their names in the revenue record as Khatedars of the land in question while submitting that the respondents were having the Khatedari rights of the land situated in Khasra No.315 admeasuring 0.5700 hectors, land situated at Khasra No.316 admeasuring 0.1000 hectors, land situated at Khasra No.318 admeasuring 0.4000 hectors and land situated at Khasra No.319 admeasuring 0.0200 hectors in Village Shobhagpura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. The petitioner-defendant and defendant No.2 filed written statement in the suit and denied the averments made therein. The SDO, Girwa District Udaipur framed four issues for adjudication of the suit filed before it. The SDO Girwa, District Udaipur dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents vide judgment and decree dated 08.06.2006 (Annexure-4). The plaintiff respondents being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2006 filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and vide judgment dated 08.11.2006 (Annexure-6), the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondents. The petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2006 (Annexure-6) preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide order dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure-8) dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2006 (Annexure-6) preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide order dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure-8) dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same, has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and Board of Revenue, Ajmer failed to appreciate the fact that the acquisition of Khatedari right in favour of the plaintiff-respondents with respect to land which is recorded in the name of “Raghunath Dwara” is in violation of mandatory provision of Section 16 and 46 of the Act of 1955 and the entry of Khatedari rights as directed in the name of plaintiff-respondents is misreading and non-reading of material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that upon perusal of Annexure-1 i.e. copies of Jamabandies it is reflected that the State of Mewar in the Samvat 1987 had recorded the rights in the name of “Shri Charbhuja Ji Sthan Deh” as Khatedar of the land in question and Shri Nanudas S/o Shri Lichmanram was recorded as ‘Pujari’ of the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Section 46 of the Act of 1955 provides exemption in case of a minor in exceptional cases and a person incapable of cultivating his holding by reason of physical disability or infirmity. He also submitted that idol/deity falls to both the classes i.e. a minor as well as the physical disabled or infirm person and the manager or the State is under an obligation to protect the interest of such a minor or disabled person. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue had not appreciated the fact that the revenue as well as the Administrative Authorities have a legal obligation to protect the interest and right of property of the temple on the their lands. He also submitted that the cultivator can act as a guardian or deity (minor) but he cannot be permitted to usurp over the rights and interests of such minor or disabled person. He also submitted that the cultivator can act as a guardian or deity (minor) but he cannot be permitted to usurp over the rights and interests of such minor or disabled person. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Board of Revenue has failed to appreciate that once the temple has been shown as a Khatedar of the land in Samvat 1987, there can be no justification in recognising any entry or transaction to the contrary. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is apparent that the name of cultivator was recorded as Chokha S/o Shri Kewal Dangi resident of Sakin Bahak (Khadamdar) and in Column No.4, the Khasra No.245 had been shown and in Column No.3 the name of Khema was also shown. He further submitted that Nanudas was also granted the right of Khadamdari for the land in Khasra No.141, 142, 267, 268, 269 and 271 by the then State (Jagirdar) vide Patta dated 11.05.54. He also submitted that the Maufi land was cultivated by the said Nanu as Khadamdar and as such in Samvat 2017 to 2020 in revenue record, the jamabandi shows the name of Nanudas recorded as Khadamdar. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon Section 38 of the Kanunmal Mewar Act in which it has been specifically laid down that the Khadamdar has been given a right of heritance and right to transfer, gift, mortgage and bequeath of such land in question. He also submitted that as per the provisions of law, the Khadamdar was treated as Khudkasat Khatedar and thus, the respondents acquired Khatedari rights in pursuance of Rajasthan Tenency Act, 1955. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Board of Revenue has rightly held that the respondent No.1 to 3 submitted the jamabandi of the year 2017 to 2020 in which the earlier seller was recorded as Khadamdar and thereafter in the Jamabandi Samvat 2021 to 2024, Samvat 2025 to 2028 and Samvat 2029 to 2032 the father of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has been shown as Khatedar of the said land in question. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 29.05.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.650/2018. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 29.05.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.650/2018. 6. This Court, finds that the Board of Revenue, Ajmer after duly examining the facts and the record available before it has given a finding that the possession of the property in dispute was with the previous seller who sold the property to the father of the respondent No.1, 2, 3. The Board of Revenue has further given a finding that Nanudas by way of registered sale deed sold off the land in dispute and also handed over the possession of the said property to the father of respondent No.1, 2, 3 and since then, the possession is with them. The Board of Revenue also observed that in connection with this, Jagirdar Bedla had also given the rights of Khadam through the lease issued by him in the year 1954, which has been presented to the Deputy Collector, Girwa. It has also been observed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer that even by looking at the Jamabandis of Samvat 2017 to 2020 it is reflected that Nanudas the former seller who sold the property in dispute to the father of respondent No.1, 2 and 3 was recorded as Khadamdar of the said land and as soon as the acceptance of waiver was done and the land was sold to the father of respondent No.1, 2 and 3 by Nanudas through registered sale deed in 1959 and accordingly they were registered as the Khatedars Kashtkars. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer has also concluded after perusing the material available on record that the respondent No.1, 2 and 3 have placed the Jamabandis for the Samvat 2017 to 2020 before the Deputy Collector, Girwa in which the earlier seller has been recorded as Khadamdar and in the Jamabandis for the Samvat 2021 to 2024, Jamabandis for the Samvat 2025 to 2028, Jamabandis for the Samvat 2029 to 2032 were also placed on record in which it is certified that the father of the respondent No.1, 2 and 3 was a Khadamdar tenant and continued to be so uptil Samvat 2041. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer has also given its finding that the petitioner has not placed any document before it or before Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and nor they have presented any document before the Land Management Officer and ex-officio Revenue Appeallate Authority, Udaipur in order to make out their case. In the case of Jodharam and Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6316/2017 decided on 13.10.2017 this Court observed that when the concurrent findings of all the Courts below are placed 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 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Taking into consideration the observation made in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nibaran Chandra Bag and Ors. Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu ( AIR 1963 SC 1895 ) in which it was observed as under: “… 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...” 8. This Court, thus observes that there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below and this Court has got limited power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate Court particularly when all the records and documents placed before the Courts below have been duly examined and appreciated and the petitioner has failed to place on record any document in order to establish that the land in question was recorded in the name of “Charbhuja Ji Sthan Deh” and Shri Nanudas S/o Shri Lichmanram was recorded as ‘Pujari’ . 9. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue, Ajmer committed any error in passing the judgment dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure-8) so as to require interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition being bereft of merit is therefore, dismissed. 10. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.