- (1.)THIS case comes in for hearing on a revision preferred under sec. 225, perhaps wrongly used for sec. 230, Rajas than Tenancy Act, by the learned Collector Jhalawar. As no such revision is conceived in law, we treat and hear it as a reference. The Collector has submitted that the Tehsildar Jhalawar has unauthorizedly sanctioned the mutation of a land entered as Zeli of Samandar Singh in favour of his sons. Shri Maqbool Alam contends that Samendar Singh is not a Zeli but a recorded Khatedar of the disputed land. Without entering into the merits of the case, however, we find that this reference itself is incompetent. A mutation case is decided not under Raj. Tenancy Act but under the Raj. Land Revenue Act as prescribed by Rules 119 to 148 of the Raj. Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules 1957 framed thereunder. Any attempt to have such a decision revised under Rajasthan Tenancy Act is therefore misconceived. Such a proceeding could be referred for orders to the Board only under sec. 88 of the Rajasthan Land Rev. Act. Under sec. 82, again, it is only the Commr. , and not the Collector who can call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceeding held by a subordinate court or officer for the purposes of satisfying himself as to legality or propriety of the order passed or as to the regularity of the proceeding held, and then submit the same along with his opinion for the orders of the Board or the Government as the case or proceeding be of a judicial nature or connected with Settlement or of a non-judicial nature. The Collector thus exercised jurisdiction not vested in him in this respect by making this reference directly to the Board. Sec. 232 Rajasthan Tenancy Act does confer upon a Collector powers concurrent with the Commissioner to make such a reference to the Board directly in cases or proceeding under that Act, but not sec. 82 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Under the latter Act, such a reference should always be forwarded by a Collector to the Commissioner who would examine the matter regarding the legality of the order passed and regularity or otherwise of the proceeding and if satisfied that the proceedings taken or order passed should be varied, cancelled or reversed submit the same to the Board or the Government, as the case may be, along with his own opinion. It is also significant to observe in this connection that in view of these clear provisions of law, the Revenue Officers should not submit revision applications under Sec. 83 or 84 Rajasthan Land Revenue Actor sec. 230 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, but submit to the provisions of sec. 82 or sec. 232, as the case may be, and take action accordingly.
(2.)THIS reference, wrongly styled as revision by the Collector, being thus incompetent is therefore returned to the learned Collector Jhalawar for proceeding afresh in accordance with law as detailed above. .
;