A writ court cannot review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. Findings of fact reached by the inferior court as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings.

1. In this writ petition, the validity of the orders dated 14-1-1988 (in review petition), dated 15-4-1987 of the Board of Revenue, and dated 29-9-1980 of the Revenue Appellate Authority has been challenged by the petitioner, and this has arison out of the following circumstances.

2. A suit filed by the petitioner was decree vide order dated 18-8-1979 (Anx. 9) by the Assistant Collector, Bhartpur, and an appeal filed against the aforesaid order (Anx. 9) before the Revenue Appellate Authority Bharatpur was allowed reversing the judjement of the Assistant Collector, and the second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on April 15, 1987 vide Annexure 11, against which a review petition was also filed but, with no success to the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Khasra No. 794 measuring 2 Bighas 15 Biswas, situated in village Semali Tehsil Nagar district Bharatpur, was in his Khudkasht, and was recorded in Jamabandi of S.Y. 2012 corresponding to the year 1955; further that, after the abolition of the 'Biswedari'. the land in question was erroneously recorded as 'Sawai Chak-Charagah' (pasture land) in the revenue record in S.Y. 2004 although in fact it was never declared as pasture land by any competent authority nor was used as such. Raghunath Singh (now deed and being represented by his danghter, Bhuri alias Jatan Kanwar, the present petitioner) had filed an application before the Collector for correction of the entries and consequently, a note was inserted in Jamabandi of S.Y. 2024. To substantiate the above facts, certified copy of the Jamabandi of S.Ys. 2008, 2012 & 2024 have been filed as Annexures 1, 2 & 3 on the application for correction of the tehsil record the Tehsildar passed an order dated 23-8-1966 (Annexure 4) which was also field in the original suit.

4. It has not been disputed that at the time when the suit was filed in the Court of the Assistant Collector, the land in question was recorded in the revenue records as Sawai Chak (pasture land). Though the suit of the petitioner's father was decreed but the Revenue Appellate Authority reversed the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court on the ground that Jamabandi of S.Y. 2012 and the judjement of the Collector which were produced before the Tehsildar have not been produced before it, as such it cannot be said that the land in question was in Khudkasht of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judjement of the Tehsildar delivered on the basis of the Jamabandi of S.Ys. 2008 & 2012, was a relevant and conclusive document. In view of the averments made in the plaint and the fads admitted by the petitioner the case of the petitioner before the Revenue Courts was that he was a tenant of the disputed land for which a declaration was sought and for that purposes it was necessary for the petitioner to have filed relevant document in support of his claim.

5. The Revenue Appellate Authority in its judjement dated 29-9-1980 (Annexure 10) observed that the order of the Collector dated 1011-1965--on the basis of which, the Tehsildar had passed the order, has not been produced. Similarly, the documents which have been mentioned in the order of the Tehsildar dated 23-8-1966, have also not been produced by the petitioner, and in the absence of which, it cannot be said that the name of the petitioner-plaintiff was recorded in the relevant Jamabandi on the basis of which, the plaintiff can be declared as Khatedar tenant of the suit land; also observed the Revenue Appellate Authority. That apart, the Revenue Appellate Authority observed that if the land in question was recorded in the Khud-kasht of the petitioner in S.Ys. 2009 to 2012 then there was no reason for the entry of 'Sawai Chak' in the Jamabandi of the S.Ys. 2024 to 2027. The Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, was justified to hold that in the absence of the relevant record, the petitioner could not be held a 'Biswedar