- (1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that the present applicants had submitted an application on 3. 10. 58 to the Tehsildar, Ajmer stating that khasra Nos. 7005 and 7007 had been incorrectly entered in the name of the opposite party in the current revenue settlement and that these should now be entered in their names. This application was transferred to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer who after hearing the parties and taking evidence accepted it. In this manner the current settlement entries prevalent re-ordered to be changed. THE opposite party took an appeal to the Commissioner against the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, who set it aside on merits. It is against this decision of the learned Commissioner that this application for revision has been preferred.
(2.) SITTING in single Bench one of us took the view that a revision in this case was not competent and that it should be treated as an appeal and referred it to the Division Bench. Having considered the matter further we think that it is an application for revision and not an appeal that lies to us in this case. The reason is that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was passed in a matter connected with settlement and as such no first appeal lay from it to the Commissioner, nor a second appeal to this Board, keeping in view the provisions of sec. 75 (b) and sec. 76 read as a whole. The first appeal from the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer in matters of land records also lay to the Director of Land Records and there is no provision for a second appeal in such a case. The Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to hear cases connected with settlement. The only remedy open to the present applicants was to bring this application for revision. The effect of the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer is to change an entry in the revenue records made in the course of survey and settlement operations. There is a sanctity about the entries made in the record of rights prepared at the time of the survey and settlement operations, and it is not permissible to modify this record merely on an application having been made to that end. The proper remedy for the party aggrieved by the entries in the record of rights prepared in the course of survey and settlement operations is to bring a suit for a declaration in his favour. This remedy was not chosen by the applicants and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer improperly acted on their application. This was without jurisdiction, since the Sub-Divisional Officer has the power only to prepare the annual register taking into account any changes that may take place in the course of time or any transactions that may affect the interest of the parties recorded in the record of rights. No such change or transaction had taken place in the present case, and what was sought by the applicants was to correct the record of rights prepared during the survey and settlement operations. The decision of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer which itself was without jurisdiction was not therefore appealable to the learned Commissioner either, whose order is also therefore without jurisdiction. This is a fit case in which we should intervene to set matters right. We, therefore, accept this application for revision, set aside the orders of both the lower courts and also reject the original application as being incompetent. The applicants may, if they are so advised, bring a suit for a change in declaration of rights which they seek. .;