- (1.) THIS reference has been made by the learned Collector, Alwar.
(2.) PUT briefly the facts of the case are that Net Ram applied before the District Land Records Officer Shri Narendra Singh on 2-4-52 for correction of entries in Khasra teep, Svt. 2006 and 2007. Harlal appears to have absented himself from these proceedings inspite of a notice and hence the case was heard ex parte. On 28-5-52 the application was allowed. On 30-5-52 Harlal appeared before the Court and applied for review of the order dated 28-5-52. The grounds taken in the application were that no legal evidence about the alleged mortgage was produced by Net Ram, that no mutation was sanctioned for the mortgage, and, that Net Ram being a non-occupancy tenant had no right to alienate the land. Shri Narendra Singh before whom this application was presented appears to have realised the impropriety of his order dated 28-5-52 but seems to have been under a mis-conception of the procedure which he could adopt in the affair. It is true that in the Alwar State Revenue Code a review could be granted only after obtaining prior sanction of the Collector. But the enforcement of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction)Act has done away with that provision. The ground and the procedure for review is laid down in Rules 209 to 215. Shri Narendra Singh in ignorance of these provisions submitted the record to the Collector with the request that he may be permitted to review his previous order. The Collector returned the papers with the remark that the law under which the reference was made should be quoted. This appears to have been received back in the D. L. R. O's Court on 10-7-52 on which date the office was required to put up the Revenue Courts(Procedure and Jurisdiction)Act. For reasons which can not be gathered from the record, no action was taken for four months and in the meanwhile, Shri Narendra Singh appears to have been transferred. On 18-11-52 the case came up before the S.D.O. who after hearing the parties held on 27-4-53 (hat as his predecessor in office had not issued a notice and as review was sought on grounds other than those mentioned in Rule 210 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, he had no jurisdiction to grant the review. But as according to him the order dated 28-5-52 was manifestly absurd he requested the Collector to refer the matter to the Board. The learned Collector without examining the record and expressing his opinion forwarded the report of the S.D.O along with the relevant papers for necessary action. On 26-2-54, he was requested to examine the record and to consider if reference was at all necessary in the matter and if so to comply with the provisions of sec. 28 of the Act. Thereupon, he has reported that he is in agreement with the views expressed by the S.D.O. I have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. It is clear to my mind that no reference in the case is necessary. Rule 210 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction)Act clearly lays down that a review application upon some grounds other than an error apparent on the fact of the decree shall be made only to the Officer who passed the same. In other words, the ground is the existence of an error apparent on the face of the decree the review application can be submitted to the successor of Officer who passed the previous order The present application is clearly based on an error apparent on the face of the record. The word 'error' is not limited to errors of fact but also includes errors of law where the law is definite and capable of ascertainment. The fact that the mistake is of such a nature is clearly borne out by the report of the S.D.O. himself. Under these circumstances, the S.D.O. Tijara was clearly wrong in holding that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. As the review application was well within time and was based on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, he was bound to determine it and should do it now. With these observations, this reference being incompetent, is hereby rejected.;