- (1.) THIS purports to be a reference u/s. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act made by the Collector, Sikar.
(2.) THE facts are that Sugan Singh had moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Neem ka Thana for correcting the revenue record so as to incorporate his name as khatedar of the land in dispute which had been recorded as 'charagah' (Pasture land ). Exercising the powers of the Land Record Officer, the learned Sub Divisional Officer made an enquiry and allowed the application. THE people of the village concerned made a representation to Government in the Revenue Department and the view communicated to the learned Collector was that the order of the learned Sub Divisional Officer Was without jurisdiction. THE learned Collector has not hered the parties, but has merely communicated that view to this Board by an official letter which does not indicate that he at all applied his own mind to the matter. This reference must be rejected. In the first place the learned Sub-Divisional Officer passed his impugned order under the Land Revenue Act, The relevant section of that Act is sec. 136. Obviously an order falling within the purview of the Land Revenue Act cannot be made a subject matter of a reference under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Secondly, the impugned order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer is within jurisdiction u/s 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the learned Collector has not at all shown that it violates the tenancy rules as alleged in his letter of reference. Thirdly, the learned Collector has not brought out any impropriety in the impugned order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. We would have very much liked the learned Collector to have heard the parties and to have formed a reasoned view regarding the propriety, legality or regularity of the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, which has not been done. As it stands, the reference does not make out any case for interference by us. We, therefore, reject this reference. .;