- (1.) THIS revision arises from a dispute between the villagers of Kangansar and Beswa, District Sikar regarding certain land measuring 1341 bighas which each side wishes to be included within its own village boundary. An application for the inclusion of this land within the boundary of village Beswa was preferred before the Settlement. Officer, Sikar by the people of that village on 29. 3. 61. However, before the matter could be decided the settlement operations were closed and the case was transferred to the Collector, Sikar, who in turn transferred it to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur, On 18. 8. 61 the learned Sub-Divisional Officer ordered that the land in dispute should be included in the boundary of village Beswa. Aggrieved by this order, Gopalram, representing the people of Kangansar, brought an appeal in the Court of the Revenue Appellate Authority, but this was returned for presentation in the proper Court. Gopal Ram has now preferred this application for the revision of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant contends that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer dated 18. 8. 61 is without jurisdiction, that it is not appealable to this Board and that it could be set aside in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Board. THE learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand argues that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was appealable in the first instance to the Revenue Appellate Authority and also suggested in the alternative that the first appeal from the Sub-Divisional Officer lay to the Settlement Commissioner and the second appeal to the Board. On the basis he has contended that since the Board is competent to hear a second appeal against the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, it cannot exercise powers of revision. Before we proceed further in the matter it is necessary to dispose of the preliminary objection regarding the availability of the revisional jurisdiction of this Board in this case. For this purpose it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which this case reached the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. We find that on the order-sheet there is an order recorded by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 5. 2. 1958 which says that since the settlement operations have closed, file should be put up to the Collector under sec. 181 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Below this order there is an order of the Collector, Sikar, dated 12. 2. 1960 which says that this is a matter of correction of the records and that as such it should be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer under sec. 136 of the Act. Now the learned Collector was obviously in error in invoking sec. 136 in this context, for this section relates to disputes regarding entries in the annual registers, whereas this dispute arose in the course of the settlement operations which were also notified to be closed along with the survey and record operations. Boundary disputes in the course of survey and record operations can be decided by the Land Records Officer under sec. 111 read with sec. 128 of the Act; and no Government Notification has come to our notice whereby powers exercisable under these sections have been vested in the Sub-Divisional Officers. On the other hand, there is Government Notification No. F. 1 (214) Rev/b/56, dated 3. 9. 1956 which says that the duties imposed and powers conferred by sec. 108 to 130 (both sections inclusive) of the Act on the Land Records Officer shall be performed and exercised by the Settlement Officer in areas under survey and record operations. Under sec. 3 (l) (iv) the term ''settlement Officer" includes on "assistant Settlement Officer", and that is how in this case the Assistant Settlement Officer was seized of the present case. When the survey and record operations were notified to be closed, which happened to be also at the same time as the close of the settlement operations, the Assistant Settlement Officer purporting to act under sec. 181 transferred the case to the Collector. Sec. 181 runs as follows - 181. Applications and proceedings pending before Settlement Officer, when operations are closed: - When the Settlement Operations in any area are closed by notification under sec. 142 all applications shall unless a permanent Settlement Officer shall have been appointed to such area, be transferred to the Collector who shall have the powers of a Settlement Officer for the disposal thereof. It will be noticed that sec. 181 authorises the Collector to exercise the powers of a "settlement Officer" for the disposal of matters pending at the close of the Settlement Operations. These powers have been devolved by the" State Government on Sub-Divisional Officers by Notification No. F. (122) Rev/b/59, dated 16. 9. 1960. Thus the learned Sub-Divisional Officer in this case had the powers of a Settlement Officer but it has to be noted that the powers of the Settlement Officer in regard to land records matters were exercisable only as long as the survey and record operations were in progress and the moment the area in which the disputed land lies ceased to be under survey and record operations, the Settlement Officer ceased to have the power to deal with matters pertaining to the record of rights including boundary disputes. Therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer who had powers under sec. 181 only as Settlement Officer and who was not competent to act as Land Records Officer under sec. 111 and 138 of the Act could not dispose of a boundary dispute which had remained undecided at the close of the survey and record operations. Now the question is, if the Sub-Divisional Officer acting as Settlement Officer assumed the powers of a Land Records Officer within the meaning of sec. 111 and 138 which he did not possess, what was the remedy against an order passed by him. By Government Notification No. F. 1 (114)Rev/b/56, dated 26. 9. 56 the powers of the Director of Land Records in matters relating to survey, preparation and revision of land record in areas under survey or record operations have been conferred on the Settlement Commissioner. The powers so conferred cannot be exercised by the Settlement Commissioner in areas which have ceased to be under record or survey operations. Therefore in a matter pertaining to land records including a boundary dispute as in the present case no appeal could be preferred from the orders of the Settlement Officer to the Settlement Commissioner. This is quite clear from the language of sec. 75 (e) of the Act which is reproduced below: - 75 appeal - (1) Save when otherwise provided in this Act, a first appeal shall lie - (e) to the Settlement Commissioner from an original (xxx) order passed by a Settlement Officer or by a Collector in matters connected with settlement. It follows from the above reasoning that no first appeal against the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer could be made to the Settlement Commissioner. For that matter, no second appeal could be made to this Board. There being no appeal to this Board, this application for revision is competent. The same position results if we treat the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Officer as an order passed by a Land Records Officer. In that ever there is no provision for a first or second appeal to this Board as such. The Act does not provide for a first appeal from all orders of a Sub-Divisional Officer to the Commissioner and a second appeal to this Board. On the other hand, the forum of appeal depends upon the subject matter of the dispute. Since no appeal lies in this Board in this case, a revision is competent. This disposes of the preliminary objection against this application for revision being entertained. We have taken the view in the foregoing discussion that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to decide a boundary dispute that remained pending at the close of the settlement operations. Such powers are exercisable by the Collector as envisaged in sec. 127 of the Act, and the State Government have not, to our knowledge issued any notification devolving these powers on the Sub-Divisional Officers. The impugned order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer in the present case cannot, therefore, be allowed to stand. The result is that we accept this revision, set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, and remand the case to the Collector Sikar for a fresh trial according to law.;