- (1.) THIS is a revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer Behror dated 7.4.1960 by which he has directed the correction of entries of the disputed land for the Rabi crop of Smt. year 2017, admittedly, after the period fixed for the inspection of crops by him (month of March) had been over, and not during the usual course of inspection of finding a mistake in the entry, but as a "Uzardari " (oral or written it is not clear from the order), and on the production of a copy of the order of 1960 granting a temporary injunction in a suit, the details whereof also are not given in the order. THIS order is recorded and enclosed in the daily-diary of the Patwari of the circle concerned. It is also purported to have been passed after calling the other party as well as after enquiring of all the Nambardars and cultivators present.
(2.) IT is being contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had been left with no jurisdiction, on the relevant date, of passing such an order and that even if any '• Uzardari " had been submitted to him, he should have proceeded to make a regular enquiry under sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 1956 and not proceeded to pass the order in the manner done by him. It is an admitted position between the parties that the Tehsildar had, during the course of his inspection tour within the period prescribed, ordered the entries to be made in favour of the opposite party, and it was this entry that had been so ordered to be corrected and amended by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. The question for determination, therefore, is whether the learned Sub-Divisional Officer could have made these correction in the entry in the manner and at the time that he has done, or he should have proceeded to enquire into the "Uzardari" in the manner laid down by sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 1956. The duties of a Sub-Divisional Officer in connection with the correct maintenance of the land records of his Sub-Division are laid down in Chapter 11 of Part IV of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He has been made to share this responsibility with the Collector. For this purpose, he was empowered to order alterations and decide all disputed cases of mutations, transfers and changes that might come before him (para 369). Para 375 thereof lays down that no hard and fast rules could be laid down as to how a particular record should be checked by the Sub-Divisional Officer. But it is laid down there that the " instructions based on experience have been given in para 353 in order to indicate the general lines which should be followed in the test of such record ". Para 353 falls in Chapter 1 of the Para IV of the Rules and deals with the " Most effective way of testing the Inspectors' work ". It has been laid down there that the most effective way of testing the work is "to do over again some of the work already done". The learned Sub-Divisional Officer could, therefore always test the accuracy of the work by re-doing the check already done by the Tehsildar or any other officer subordinate to him. If he could do so, there could not be any bar, to my mind, to his making a re-check of the work checked by the Tehsildar or any other subordinate officer even on a representation (" Uzardari "), made to him during the course of his inspection tour. Such representation or Uzardari could be both oral or in writing. It would also, therefore, be within his competence to order alteration or corrections, in exercise of his powers under para 369 referred to above, if he found any mistake in an entry already checked, or even made after a check, by the Tehsildar or any other Officer subordinate to him. It would still be within his competence under the same para 369 to do so after enquiring of the parties and other concerned persons present on the spot on the site itself. With the above view of the matter, the only point that could remain to assail the action of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was that he had ordered the correction after the end of the month of March fixed for the checking of Rabi Girdawari by him vide Appendix I to Chapter II Part VI of the Rules. This point, has not been as yet, found to have been examined directly by the Board in any case. There has been, however, an occasion to examine it with reference to the duties of the Tehsildar and the Naib-Tehsildar for the correction of entries in Khasra Girdawari in Ramsingh Vs. Ghisi, reported at 1961 RRD page 226, to which I was a party. It has been held there, after examining the various provisions of the Rules that the Tehsildar or the Naib-Tehsildar was competent to make or alter entries in the Khasra Girdawari within the period prescribed vide Rule 58(1) of the Appendix I to Chapter I of Part VI dealing with the yearly programme of the Tehsildar or Naib-Tehsildar or "at any rate before the harvesting of the crop to which the test checking proposed to be checked by him or the dispute regarding the entries, relates, and further, provided that he does so after giving a notice to all persons concerned (specially those who are likely to be affected by this order) and the Sarpanchas and the Nambardar concerned as well as the cultivators concerned, and the estate-holder, if any, and letting them have an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Otherwise, such an order would be an order made at a time not authorised by law as well or behind the back of the parties, the evidentiary value whereof would suffer as held in 1957 RRD-38" (Para 8 page 230). The same, to my mind, could be said about the propriety of the correction ordered by a Sub-Divisional Officer. If he ordered an alteration or correction in any case before the harvesting of the crop to which his inspection related and after hearing the parties and all concerned specially called for at the time of inspection, such an alteration or correction would be deemed to have been made in his capacity as an Officer responsible for the correct maintenance of the land records work, for which he specially shared the responsibility with the Collector and was specially responsible, subject to the control of the Collector, as laid down by para 369 referred to above, and this action on his part could not be questioned on point of jurisdiction. In Persa Vs. Shri Bhagat, 1956 RRD-286, and Appeal No. 17/Bharatpur/195 8 - Gariba Vs. Ghanshayam and others, decided on 15.11.58 also it has been held although in a different context, that (only a correction ordered by a Sub-Divisional Officer without making an enquiry and behind the back of the party could be vitiated and not the correction made after an enquiry in the presence of the parties and all other concerned and after hearing them. In this view of the matter taken by me, the impugned corrections ordered by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer on 7.4.61, when the Rabi crops could not have been possibly harvested, cannot be called to have been made without jurisdiction, as contended by the learned counsel for the! applicant. Any party aggrieved thereby, was always free to have them corrected through a proceeding under sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 and subject to the result of such a proceeding they would stand. The applicant should, therefore, proceed under sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, if he felt aggrieved. With the above observations, this revision is hereby rejected. ;