The main legal point established is that appellate authorities must thoroughly consider the evidence presented and provide a proper discussion before reversing a finding of fact.

Govind Mathur, J.-By filing a suit under Section 88 and 92-A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Assistant Collector, Pokaran, the petitioner sought a decree to declare him Khatedar tenant for 300 bighas of land situated in Khasra No. 48 in Village Nannai by making necessary corrections in revenue records. The petitioner claimed for decree as above by claiming himself Jagirdar having possession over the land since immemorial. By virtue of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 the petitioner claimed himself to be a Khatedar tenant.

2. The suit preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Judgment dated 011.1981 passed by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector, Pokaran, dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff was in service and was not residing at village Nannai, therefore, the land in dispute could not be under his possession. The statement of the plaintiff-petitioner that he being in service care of the land was taken by his father too was not accepted. The petitioner, therefore, availed remedy prescribed under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur.

3. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur by the judgement dated 04.01.1985 reversed the Judgment dated 011.1981 by accepting the appeal. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur held that the trial Court over-looked the material evidence available on record while rejecting the claim made by the plaintiff about possession over the land in dispute. The Revenue Appellate Authority in view of the statements given by the plaintiff himself , Kilyana S/o Pratapji, Govind Singh S/o Saidan Singh and Dungar Ram S/o Uttama Ram and in view of the inspection report of the Assistant Collector held possession of the plaintiff-petitioner on land in dispute proved. The Revenue Appellate Authority, in its Judgment dated 04.01.1985 discussed in detail the statements given by Kilyana, Govind Singh and Dungar Ram. The Revenue Appellate Authority also considered report of the inspection made by Assistant Collector himself . The Revenue Appellate Authority while accepting the appeal also observed that the Assistant Collector, heard the matter on 21.01.1980 and the Judgment was pronounced on 011.1981 i.e., after a lapse of about 2 years from the date of hearing. The Revenue Appellate Authority accordingly decreed the suit and declared the plaintiff-petitioner Khatedar tenant for land measuring 300 bighas in Khasra No. 48 of village Nannai, Tehsil-Pokaran. An order was also passed to charge Lagan from the petitioner from the date of application of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

4. The State of Rajasthan being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 04.01.1985 preferred a second appeal as provided under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act challenging the Judgment dated 04.01.1985 before the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Learned Board of Revenue by its Judgment dated 08.02.1994 accepted the appeal by setting aside the Judgment dated 04.01.1985 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and restored the Judgment dated 011.1981 passed by the Assistant Collector, Pokaran. The Board of Revenue while accepting the second appeal held that no evidence was produced by the plaintiff-petitioner except oral evidence and on basis of oral evidence long possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute could be not established. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 09.02.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue.

5. A reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents defending the Judgment passed by the Board of Revenue. The respondents also placed on record copies of relevant revenue record wherein the land in dispute is shown as Khalsa.

6. A rejoinder to the reply is also submitted by the petitioner to substantiate the contentions made in the writ petition with a specific