RAMSWARUP Vs. HEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision wrongly styled as an appeal, against the order of the Sub -divisional Officer (Land Record Officer) Jaitaran deserves to be accepted on the ground that the learned Sub -divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to hear and try the case. The case started on an objection preferred by respondent No.4 against the disputed land having been entered in the name of the appellant at the time of survey and record operations. Before it could be finally decided, the operations, came to a close and thus it was transferred to the Collector Pali for disposal. The learned Collector instead of deciding it himself transferred it in his turn to the learned Sub -divisional Officer. The question is whether the learned Collector could so transfer the case to the learned Sub -divisional Officer or he should have disposed it off himself finally. Vide sec. 127 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), when the record operations are closed by a notification under sec. 107, all applications and proceedings then pending before the Additional Land Records Officers have, if such an officer has not been appointed permanently, to be transferred to the Collector. Under sec. 125 of the Act read with sec. 108 thereof, disputes regarding the entries in the record of rights being prepared during the course of the record of rights operations have to be decided by the Land Records Officer. Such a Land Record Officer can be only the officer appointed under sec. 108 or appointed under sec. 20 of the Act. The Sub -divisional Officer is neither of these officers. He can, therefore, hear and decide the case so transferred to the Collector under sec. 127 of Act only if he has been delegated the powers of Land Records Officer for purpose of sec. 125 of the Act. No Government notification issued under sec. 260 of the Act delegating such powers to the Sub -divisional Officer has been found to exist. The only notification referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent to support the jurisdiction of the Sub -divisional Officer in this case is No. 12(183) Rev. B/56/ of September 17, 1956, published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated October 25, 1956 part 1(A) at page 197. A bare reading of this notification would go to show that by it the State Government has been pleased to direct the performance and exercise by the Sub -divisional Officer only of the duties imposed and powers conferred by secs. 131, 132 and 136 of the Act. It has got nothing to do with the duties imposed and powers conferred by sec. 125 of the Act upon the Land Records Officer. Powers exercisable under secs. 131, 132 and 136 of the Act are those for the maintenance of maps and annual registers and deciding the disputes regarding the entries therein; but certainly not for the preparation of the record of rights themselves at the time of the record operations as required by sec. 113 and deciding the disputes for entries therein under sec. 125 of the Act. There seems to be a confusion in the minds of the Collectors and the Sub -divisional Officers that as the powers of Land Records Officer under secs. 131, 132 and 136 of the Act have been delegated to the Sub -divisional Officer by the above referred notification, they can also exercise the powers of the Land Records Officers under sec. 125 of the Act even for the preparation or revision of the record of rights during the course of the record operations. Nothing can be further than this from the correct position of law in this behalf. The Collectors alone are the Land Records Officers vide sec. 20 of the Act; and vide sec. 108 thereof Special Additional Land Records Officers have got to be appointed for the purposes of carrying on the record operations and deciding the disputes arising in the course thereof, to be incharge of such operations unless permanent Additional Records Officers as may be appointed by the State Government vide sec. 2o(b)(i) thereof, have been already appointed to the areas brought under in such record operations. The proceedings and applications remaining pending upon the close of the record operations before the Additional Land Records Officers so appointed under sec. 108, are required to be transferred only to the Collector under sec. 127 of the Act and not to any other officer. And it is only the Collectors as Land Record Officer who can decide them. The Collector has got no authority to delegate these powers to the Sub -divisional Officers. It is only the Additional Collectors, who may be appointed as an Additional Land Records Officers of a District or who may be deemed to have the powers of the Land Records Officer under sec. 25 thereof, who can exercise these powers of the Collector in the absence of the Collector in cases transferred to them under sec. 127 of the Act. The Sub -divisional Officer, simply because they have been delegated the powers of a Land Records Officer for the main:enance of the annual registers, as defined by sec. 132 of the Act, cannot exercise the powers of the Land Records Officer meant for the preparation of the Records of the rights during the course of the record operations.

(2.) We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the orders of the learned S.D.O. as having been passed without jurisdiction and remand the case to the learned Collector Pali for disposal in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above.