- (1.) THIS is a reference from the Division Bench consisting of Sarvshri Balwantsingh and Gajendrasingh sent to this larger Bench in the following terms : - "is khasra girdawari a record of right and does an application lie for correction of khasra girdawari entries before the Land Records Officer. "
(2.) THE Division Bench has pointed out, that in their opinion correction of khasra girdawari entries is uncalled for as that record is not a record of rights within the provisions 'of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Some of the counsel who appeared before us at first challenged the jurisdiction of this larger Bench to adjudicate upon this question in view of the Notification issued by the Government No. F. 2 (172) Rev. D/gr/11/61, dated the 27th June, 1963 in which the jurisdiction of hearing of appeals against the correction of entries in the record of rights from the orders of the Assistant Collectors has been transferred to the Revenue Appellate Authority from first July, 1963. Some of the lawyers appearing were of the view that since the Board was already seized of the matter it could adjudicate upon such matters. The Board functioned in dual capacity as pointed out by Shri Roop Chand Sogani both as the Director of Land Records as well as the Board of Revenue constituted for other purposes. Shri S. N. Pareek contended that under sec. 11 of the Land Revenue Act the Chairman or a Member sitting singly may refer the case on a question of law for the opinion of a Bench. In his view no reference by Division Bench is provided to a larger Bench. Shri B. K. Pareek, Government Advocate and Shri R. C. Sogani, Advocate however laid stress on the fact that a convention has grown in this Court when questions of law referred to by Division Bench being heard and disposed of by the larger or Full Bench of this very Board. Thus the Board has the jurisdiction to dispose of such matters. On this question of jurisdiction we are clearly of the opinion that this was a reference made by Division Bench to a larger Bench on a point of law which is of great public importance and a decision on this important question of law in our opinion would greatly help to decrease or increase the litigation according to the decision this Board may take. This reference by the Division Bench was made long before the jurisdiction of the Board to hear appeals against the Land Records Officer came to an end by the Government Notification referred to above and thus this reference to the larger Bench in our opinion is quite competent. Besides a point of law has been referred for decision by the larger Bench and this does not involve a decision of an appeal by the Revenue Board relating to the land record matters. The argument of some of the lawyers that this reference from the Division Bench to a larger Bench was incompetent and was in contravention of the provisions of the Act has absolutely no force. A member sitting singly as well as a Division Bench could always make a reference to a larger Bench when found necessary and this practice has grown in the Board and no infringement of any provision of the Land Revenue Act has been observed. There is no doubt that sec. 11 speaks of a reference by the Chairman or a Member sitting singly on a point of law to a Bench but there is nothing to prevent a Bench referring a point of law to larger or a full Bench because the jurisdiction of the Board can be exercised as laid down in sec. 10 of the same Act either by the Chairman or any other Member of the Board sitting singly or by a Bench of the Board consisting of two or more Members. Therefore this larger Bench is fully competent to take a decision on this important point of law of a reference made by a Division Bench. This objection , therefore of some of the members of the Bar is ruled out. We have carefully gone into the order of reference passed by the Division Bench to this larger Bench. The practice has grown that applications under sec. 136 of the Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called the Act) 1956 are made before the Assistant Collectors to invoke their jurisdiction to pass orders for correction of girdawari entries after due enquiry. The Division Bench is of the opinion that the girdawari register is not an "annual register" and therefore the correction of entries in the girdawari register is not a correction of the record of rights. An Annual Register has been defined in sec. 132 of the Act which reads as follows : - "132. (1) The Land Records Officer shall maintain the record of rights and for that purpose shall, annually or at such longer intervals as the State Government may prescribe, cause to be prepared a set or an amended set, as the case may be, of the registers enumerated in secs. 114 and 120 and the registers so prepared shall be called the annual registers. (2) The Land Records Officer shall cause to be recorded in the annual registers, in the prescribed manner all changes that may take place and any transaction that may affect any of the rights or interests recorded. Sec. 114 of the Act states that the following will form the Record of Rights : - 114. (a) Khewat, that is to say, a register of all estate holders. (b) Khatauni, that is to say, a register of all persons cultivating or holding or occupying land. (c) Register of all persons holding land in such area free of rent or revenue ; and (d) Such other registers as may be prescribed. " Sec. 120 of the Act imposes the duty on the Land Records Officer to prepare in the prescribed form a register of villages containing the list of all villages in the area under survey and record operations with various particulars mentioned therein. It will appear therefore that the khasra girdawari record does not find any place in the Act to come within the definition of the record of rights or Annual Register. We thus also accept the views taken by the Division Bench in this matter. The same Division Bench has also rightly pointed out that in the State of Punjab under the Punjab Land Revenue Act of 1887, the view has been taken that there can be no mutation of Khasra girdawari entries as it does not form part of the record of rights and no application lies to correct such entries. Such entries as properly pointed out by the Division Bench are meant to represent a quasi permanent status. Some times the case of Surajmal vs. The State as reported in R. R. D. 1959 at page 173 is cited as an authority for the proposition that khasra girdawari is a record of right. As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench this case arose in a criminal revision where the question of the possession over the land in dispute was examined by the learned Judge of the High Court wherein he has pointed out that khasra girdawari is the foundation of the record of right as laid down in R. 355 sub-rule (b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Record Rules), 1957. There is nothing to warrant that the khasra girdawari itself was held to be the record of rights by the learned Judge in the above judgment. There the entry in khasra girdawari wrongly construed as the record of rights was considered as a correct entry, being a public document as presumption of truth attaches to such documents until it was disproved. Thus the decision in that Criminal Revision of the High Court is no authority in law to hold that khasra girdawari is a record of rights. On the contrary, the Rajasthan Land Revenue Rules as well as the Act clearly lay down that khasra girdawari is not a record of rights. The only argument that is advanced in upholding this view was that a constant practice has grown in all the Revenue Courts where khasra girdawari is recognised as the record of rights and normally applications are filed for the correction of such entries. It is not understood how this wrong practice has grown in all the Revenue Courts. Long before the Land Revenue Act came into force the work of the Revenue Court was governed by the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction Act, 1961 ). Under that Act applications were disposed of by Sub-Divisional Officer under Group D of the first schedule for the following two items, which reads as follows : - "xvii for decision of disputes regarding other entries of the record of rights. XVIII for correction of entries in the land records. " In Group F of the same schedule item 5 reads as follows : - "for decision of disputes regarding other entries in the record of right was held triable by the Assistant Records Officer. " What exactly was the difference between item XVII and XVIII under the Revenue Courts Act, 1951 cannot be ascertained with any precision. At that time it may be stated that no Land Revenue Act was in force. Different States had different Revenue and Tenancy Acts, Rules and Circulars. Probably from some of the States this practice was drawn by the State of Rajasthan that correction of entries in the girdawari record was considered as the correction of the record of rights and the khasra girdawari was equated with the record of right or the jamabandi khatauni. No check at that time was applied to this unhealthy practice which has resulted in flooding the Courts of the Revenue Officers with such applications for correction of an ephemeral record. It may be stated that the khasra girdawari entries are made by the Patwaris on their tour and checked and re-checked by the Revenue Inspectors and the Tehsildars. All disputes regarding such entries are corrected by the Inspecting Officers on tour after a summary enquiry based on possession of the holding and the nature of such possession by a tenant or the sub-tenant after the khasra girdawari register is completed determined and a Jamabandi is prepared. This newly prepared Jamabandi has to be finally attested before the Village Assembly by the Tehsildar and all such undisputed entries in the record of rights are to be attested by the parties interested under sec. 122 of the Revenue Act and if any dispute still prevails it has to be disposed of by the Land Records Officer in accordance with the provisions of secs. 123, 124 and 125 of the Land Revenue Act. In the last section if some party is still aggrieved by that order he has a right to bring a regular suit in Civil or Revenue Court for establishing his right to the property. The same practice prevails for the decision of disputed entries at the time of maintenance of annual registers under sec. 136 of the Land Revenue Act. It will thus appear that the entry at the time of girdawari operations by Patwari is nothing but an entry made in discharge of his administrative function and its correction at that stage must be sought in an administrative manner before the competent authorities and no application should be filed for correction of such entries. It is only after all this remedy has been exhausted and the entry has found place in the jamabandi khatauni, then alone a regular application would lie for correction of such record of right as mentioned above. There is no doubt that while examining such wrong entries made by the Patwari or the Land Revenue Inspector or a Tehsildar for that purpose, the Revenue Officers would no doubt see that if any entry is sought to be corrected in a summary or administrative matter with regard to tenancy of the holding in dispute, the Revenue Officers are bound to enquire whether a person who claims to be a tenant of the holding in question is the one who has actually been admitted as a tenant by the recorded khatedar. Before a person can be considered as admitted to be a tenant he must show that contract of tenancy oral or written was entered into between the khatedar or the person concerned, that he went into occupation of the land as a result of such an agreement or contract and that he was liable to pay rent or actually paid rent to the khatedar concerned. Normally disputes about correction of record of rights relate to entry of persons in the column of tenants and sub-tenants. If a proper caution is exercised by the Revenue officers on this important part of the girdawari record or at the time of preparation of jamabandi, a large number of disputes relating to tenancy of the holding could be minimised. It is only after the jamabandi khatauni has been prepared and if any dispute still persists then an application for correction of the record of right would lie and not before because Jamabandi khatauni is the only record of right and not khasra girdawari. At the time of filing an application for correction of such record of right invariably the copy of jamabandi and not of khasra girdawari has to be attached to such application and which should form the basis of the application for correction of such entry. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the khasra girdawari is not a record of rights and no application for correction of kharsa girdawari entries lies before the Land Records Officers. This reference of the Division Bench is, therefore, answered in negative and the case is returned to the Division Bench for disposal. Per R. N. Madhok- I respectfully agree with my learned colleagues that the Khasra girdawari is not a part of the record of rights within the meaning of Sec. 114 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, or a part of the periodically revised version of the record of rights styled as the "annual registers" in Section 132 of that Act. I would, however, venture to make a few supplementary observations : - Under Section 90 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, all land is liable to the payment of revenue or rent unless specially exempted by the State Government or by the provisions of law for the time being in force. It is with a view to facilitating the collection of revenue or rent chargeable by the State that land is cadastrally surveyed and a record of rights prepared within the meaning of Section 114 of the Act. The essential ingredients of this record of rights are the "khewat" which is a register of all estate-holders, a "khatauni" which is a register of persons cultivating or otherwise holding or occupying land, and a register of all persons holding land free of rent or revenue. At every settlement a record of rights known as the settlement jamabandi is prepared in which are set out the names of persons holding various types of interest in land and the revenue or rent to the State by those who are liable to do so. Primarily it is a fiscal record which helps identify the persons liable to pay revenue or rent. The settlement is a legal contract between the State on the one hand and the estate holders or tenants on the other. Under Section 224 of the Act the revenue or rent determined at the settlement is a first charge on the estate or holding. Since interests in an estate or holding change hands in the course of time by process of inheritence, transfer or otherwise it becomes necessary to keep the record of rights up-to-date for fiscal purposes. To this end a revised set of the record of rights is prepared periodically under section 132 of the Act and is known as the "annual registers. " In the State of Rajasthan the so called "annual registers" are prepared quadrennially. Except where changes in rights have occurred by inheritence or transfer, the record of rights or the settlement jamabandi is reproduced as the quadrennial jamabandi. Where however changes in rights have taken place, the changes are effected by way of mutation under section 136 of the Act. This process goes on every four years until there is a new settlement when the record of rights is prepared afresh. The khasra girdawari is essentially a crop inspection report which is prepared by the patwari at every harvest. It is a statistical record of agricultural conditions and serves an administrative purpose. It provides a basis for the formation of agricultural policies as also such administrative decisions as to whether the land revenue or rent should be suspended or remitted if necessary. The Khasra girdawari is made out in form P. 13 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records Rules) 1957. The first eight columns of this form are a transcript of the entries in the quadrennial jamabandi. The various other columns detail the area and the crops. However, there is one column for each year wherein are entered facts of changes of rights, possession, rents and revenue. It is partly on the basis of the facts regarding such changes observed by the Patwari during his crop inspection that proceedings for mutation of rights are initiated, such mutations being eventually decided by a revenue officer. It is one thing to say that the khasra girdawari is one of the sources of information to initiate the process of mutation of rights and quite another to say that it is the record of rights. The record of rights cannot be changed except by a process of mutation which is adjudicated upon by a Revenue Officers after hearing the parties in a public assembly or Jalsa-e-aam. The khasra girdawari is on the other hand a statistical record prepared by the Patwari who also reports factually on the changes in rights observed by him. The changes noted by the Patwari in the khasra girdawari do not automatically find their way into the succeeding quadrennial jamabandi. A judicial process of determination of rights by a responsible officer intervenes before the changes observed by the Patwari are incorporated in the next succeeding jamabandi. The khasra girdawari is not subject to a complete scrutiny by the Revenue officers who only tests its veracity by sample check. As such it would not be correct to treat the khasra girdawari as a record of rights or an "annual register". Under Section 140 of the Act there is a presumption of truth attaching to all entries in the record of rights and it would be a difficult position to concede that a presumption of truth attaches to the entries made by the Patwari in his crop inspection report, namely, the khasra girdawari. Undoubtedly the khasra girdawari is a public record and has evidentiary value. But it does not attain the status of the record of rights to which the legal presumption of truth attaches. From the above discussion it should follow that the khasra girdawari is neither a record of rights nor an "annual register", and that disputes regarding entries in the khasra girdawari do not fall within the ambit of Section 136 of the Act. . ;