DEV KARAN Vs. TEJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under sec. 75 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act by Shri Deo Karan has been filed against an order of the Land Records Officers dated 13. 12. 61 and in our opinion must be accepted. The simple facts of the case are that the appellant by an application u/sec. 136 of the Land Revenue Act claimed correction of Khasra teep of St. year 2017 in respect of Khasra Nos. 2009, 533, 548, 553 and 555. His case was that certain part of these Khasra Numbers had been cultivated by him and not by Tej Singh as recorded in girdawari. Tejsingh filed a written statement admitting the claim of the application. Never-the-less the learned SDO proceeded to hear arguments in the case and dismissed it finally on the ground that portions of the same Khasra numbers were cultivated by one Mohan who had not been made a party to the case and that no evidence had been led by the applicant to substantiate his claim. We have no manner of doubt that the learned Records Officer has entirely misunderstood the law. Under the law a duty is cast upon the Records Officers to maintain their record in accordance with the facts proved or admitted. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that he wanted correction only relating to that portion of the Khasra numbers in dispute which he had cultivated and where Tej Singh's name had been wrongly entered and inasmuch as Tej Singh had admitted this claim it was an admitted fact. The learned S. D. O. ought to have directed the correction of Khasra teeps so as to bring it in conformity with the admitted facts. As regards the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Records Officer that the application was bad as Mohan had not been made a party to the case we would like to invite his attention to Order 1 Rule 9 of the C. P. C. THIS provision of law clearly lays down that no suit or application would be defeated for want of misjoinder of parties. As the court has ample power to order any parties to be brought on record if it feels necessary to do so for the proper disposal of the case we therefore have no hesitation in accepting this appeal, setting aside the order of the learned S. D. O. , with the direction that the case will go to him for a fresh inquiry after directing Mohan to be added as party to the case. .