(1.) This is a revision directed against the order of the Additional Collector, Bharatpur, dated 17.4.61, reversing the order of the Tehsildar Bayana dated 12 -12 -60. It arises out of the following circumstances :
(2.) The applicant, Ram Singh, made an application to the Tehsildar Bayana on 3.10.60 with an allegation that he had been cultivating the disputed land as a Khatedar for a long time and had been in cultivatory possession thereof even during the kharif crop of Smt. 2017, but that the Patwari had, in collusion with the opposite party, left the entries against khasra No. 328 and 329 blank and had entered the remaining khasra Nos. 366, 367, 369 and 373 in the name of the opposite party. The request was that the Patwari be ordered to enter the whole of the disputed land in his name. The learned Tehsildar forwarded it to the Inspector Land Records the same day to be enquired into at the time of Partal in the presence of the Panch and the patels. The Inspectors in his turn forwarded the same to the Patwari to be put up on site. Evidently, that was the time of khasra girdawari for the kharif crop vide Rules 58 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It appears that the disputed khasra numbers were taken in "Tanaza kasht". In the fard prepared, the [opposite party was stated to be the sabiq kashtkar and the applicant to be the present one. The Inspector Land Records, it appears, recorded the statements of certain persons besides the parties, and submitted the case with a simple report that both the parties were alleging their cultivatory possessions over the disputed land. On what date did the Inspector report this case to the Tehsildar under Rule 199 of the Rule is not clear from the fard on the record. But it contains an order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 12 -12 - 60 which seems to have been passed after recording the evidence of the parties on the same day, probably on the spot. The order does not contain any reasons. But it says that the girdawari of the disputed land of Smt. 2017 be done in the name of the applicant - -Ram Singh. The opposite party went in an appeal against this order to the Addl. Collector. He alleged himself to be the Khatedar -tenant of the disputed land and contended that the entry had been ordered to be amended in favour of the applicant, wrongly. The learned Addl. Collector following the authority of Shyamlal V/s Bipati, 1958 R. R. D. 163, held the action of the Naib Tehsildar to be unauthorised. The reason for his decision was that the learned Naib Tehsildar had no authority under Rule 351 read with Rule 348 of the Rules to order the correction of any entry in khasra -girdawari after the completion of that work, even though he was also influenced by the decision of the Sub -divisional Officer Bayana in a criminal proceeding under sec, 145 Cr.P.C. Hence this revision.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The judgment of the learned lower appellate court has been assailed on the ground that it should not have relied on the judgment under sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and that the proposition laid down in 1958 R. R. D. 163 has been mis -undesrstood. In order to remove all possible confusion regarding the duties of the various revenue officers under the Rules so far as they relate to the making of entries in the khasra -girdwari vis -a -vis the correction of entries under sec. 126 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, we propose to examine the law in this behalf in detail. It is the Chapter IV of the Rules which deals with the preparation of the quadriennial and annual records. Khasra -girdawari is one of the quadrennial records. Rule 5 8(i) deals with the duties of the Patwari to maintain the map and the khasra. The Patwari is directed therein to make three field inspections every year of every village in his circle and one more in Ganganagar District. The dates of these inspections given therein are as under": - - Name of Crop Date of commencement Date of completion