- (1.) THIS application was filed before the Revenue Minister of the former Jaipur State against the decision of the Revenue Board of the Jaipur State. The Revenue Minister could not hear the applicant and the State merged in Rajasthan. The application having thus remained pending has come to the present Board for disposal.
(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties. The non-applicant has raised a preliminary objection against hearing the case on merits. His argument is that according to sec. 8 of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act the Board was the highest Revenue Court of appeal and revision hence no appeal or revision against a decision of the Board lies to the Government and the application was irregular and incompetent and could not be entertained. The decision of the Board was final. The counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to para 2 of the same section which runs as follows : - "Subject as aforesaid, the Board shall also be the highest Revenue Court of revision, except in respect of matters relating to survey, records and settlement and in all such matters the Government may also exercise the powers of revision in lieu of or in addition to the exercise of a similar power by the Board." His contention is that this case is covered by this exception as it is a case relating to records and the Government could hear a revision and if the Government has sent this case to the Rajasthan Board they could hear it. To decide this point we must know what are matters relating to records referred to in this section. The Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, I947, chapter V deals with survey and records. Under that chapter several matters including determination of tenancy are given. All such matters are meant to be dealt with by Record Officers during the course of record operations or settlement operations. It is such matters which can, therefore, be considered to be matters relating to records but not ejectment of a tenant on the ground of his being a sub-tenant holding from year to year as is the matter in this case. Merely because reference is to be made to entries in records the case can not be said to be one relating to records. Reference to records as evidence does not make it a case relating to records. If it were so, nearly every case can be said to be one relating to records for settlement records have to be referred to in almost every revenue case. We are, therefore, not prepared to concede this argument and hold that the case is not one relating to record and the decision of the Jaipur Board was final and the application was incompetent and is rejected.;