JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned judgments dated 08.11.2004, 01.09.2008 and 21.04.2022 (Annx.3, 4 and 5) may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other order favourable to the petitioners may also be passed.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the respondent/plaintiff [Shri Shankheshwar Parshavnath Mandir (Mandir Parshvanath) Pratapgarh through the then Trustee Dhanpal Son of Kesri Mal Hadpawat] instituted a suit, originally, against father of the petitioners/defendants under Section 183 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tendency Act, 1955 for possession and also seeking permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing khasra no. 240 to 244 and 248 to 250, before the Assistant Collector, Pratapgarh. Since the original plaintiff Radhey Lal Mali expired during pendency of the suit, his legal heirs (the present petitioners) contested the said suit. 2.1. In the said suit, it was prayed that the petitioners/defendants may be ordered to be ejected from the disputed land in question, and may be permanently restrained from making any interference in the said land. 2.2. The petitioners/defendants, in the suit in question, filed a written statement, averring therein that they were in possession of the land in question since 2002 and prior thereto also, the said land was being cultivated by the petitioners/defendants and their ancestors. They thus, stated that the respondent/plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. 2.3. Thereafter, the learned Assistant Collector (Sub-Divisional Officer), Pratapgarh proceeded with the suit and framed six issues, and the parties led their evidence before the said revenue authority. The learned Assistant Collector, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2004, decreed the said suit against the petitioners/defendants, and while declaring them as encroachers over the land in question, directed their ejection therefrom; the said revenue authority also directed the petitioners/defendants to pay 50 times lagaan, till handing over the possession of the land in question, to the respondent/plaintiff. 2.4. The petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2004, preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. 2.4. The petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2004, preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008, dismissed the said appeal, while affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector (Sub Divisional Officer), Pratapgarh; whereupon the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 was challenged by the petitioners/defendants by preferring an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, but the said appeal was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 21.04.2022, while affirming the concurring judgments passed by the two revenue authorities below. Hence, being aggrieved by the concurring determinations made by the three revenue authorities below, the present petition has been preferred claiming the aforequoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the learned Assistant Collector has not decided the suit, while duly appreciating the documents and evidences presented by the petitioners/defendants before it. As per learned counsel, the ancestors of the petitioners/defendants were in possession of the land in question for last 50 years, as reflected in the relevant revenue records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants further submitted that so far as the name of ancestors viz. Radha Kishan Radhey Lal, of the petitioners/defendants, as mentioned in the revenue records is concerned, both were the same, being son of one Pyara Ji. Thus, as per learned counsel, such minor discrepancy in the name ought not to have any adverse impact upon the claim of the petitioners/defendants, but the same was not considered in the right perspective, by the learned revenue authority below. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants also submitted that neither the respondent/plaintiff was a registered trust, nor the person, through whom the suit in question was instituted, was its Trustee, and thus, all the three learned revenue authorities below fell into grave error of law in not duly considering such a vital legal aspect of the matter. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants also submitted that neither the respondent/plaintiff was a registered trust, nor the person, through whom the suit in question was instituted, was its Trustee, and thus, all the three learned revenue authorities below fell into grave error of law in not duly considering such a vital legal aspect of the matter. 6. On the other land, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the Deity is a perpetual minor and the land in question has been recorded in the name of temple, and thus, the petitioners/defendants were encroachers over the said land in question, more particularly, when they were conferred no khatedari rights in respect of the land in question by the competent authority, and thus, the factual matrix, as projected by the petitioners/defendants in the present case, is nothing but a false and fabricated version of the correct factual matrix, which the respondent/plaintiff successfully substantiated by placing cogent material before the learned revenue authority below. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff further submitted that the petitioners/defendants were in illegal possession of the land in question, and thus, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, they had no right to continue to remain in such illegal possession. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff further submitted that as per the revenue record (Araji Samwat 2010 to 2013 and 2017 to 2020), the land in question had been recorded in the name of Mandir. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff thus submitted that in view of the aforesaid backdrop, it is clear that the learned revenue authorities below have passed the impugned concurring judgments, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, while duly appreciating all the material and evidence placed on record before them. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners/defendants are not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 11. This Court observes that the suit in question was instituted in the year 1998 against illegal possession of the petitioners/defendants over the land in question, alleging that they were encroachers over the said land. 12. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 11. This Court observes that the suit in question was instituted in the year 1998 against illegal possession of the petitioners/defendants over the land in question, alleging that they were encroachers over the said land. 12. This Court further observes that the petitioners/defendants were rightly declared as encroachers, since as per the revenue records (Jamabandi Samwat 2053-2056 - Exhibits 1 and 2) the land in question was recorded as a khatedari land, in the name of respondent/plaintiff. 13. This Court also observes that the learned revenue authorities below recorded in the impugned judgments observed that the Exhibits 1 and 2 (Jamabandi of Samwat 2053-2056) reveal that the land in question was recorded in the name of the temple and in Exhibit-3, being the Jamabandi of Samwat 2010-2013, the name of the respondent/plaintiff had been shown in column 4; same was the position in the Jamabandis of Samwat 2013-16 (Exhibit-4) and 2017 to 2020 (Exhibit-5). The Jamabandi of Samwat 2029-30 (Exhibit-6) reveals that the name of the respondent/plaintiff in column 5. Exhibit-3 also reveals that name of the ancestor i.e. Radhe Lal, of the petitioners/defendants, did not appear in column no. 5; also, no supporting material, showing that on the relevant date, he was in cultivatory possession of the land in question, was ever placed before the learned revenue authorities below. 14. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason so as to make interference in the concurrent findings recorded by the learned revenue authorities below in the well reasoned and speaking judgments impugned herein. 15. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.