- (1.) THIS revision has been filed against an appellate order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jodhpur dated 8-6-54 in a case regarding entries in the record of rights.
(2.) THE applicant applied to the Assistant Record Officer, Keru that khasra No. 226/1 in village Khetasar, Tehsil Jodhpur was his Sir land and had been in his possession for a long time but it had wrongly been entered as in the khatedari of the opposite party. He prayed that the name of the opposite party be expunged from the records and his name may be substituted therefor. THE Assistant Record Officer after recording the evidence of the parties ordered the correction to be made as desired by the applicant. THE opposite party then filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Jodhpur, who reversed the order of the Assistant Record Officer and restored the original entry which stood in the name of the opposite party. THE applicant then went in second appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jodhpur who affirmed the decision of the Settlement Officer by his order dated 8-6-54 Hence this revision before the Board. As the opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice, the counsel for the applicant was heard ex parte and the record of the case was also examined by me. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the possession of the opposite party over the land in dispute is that of a trespasser and should not therefore be given any recognition in Settlement papers. 1 have no hesitation in holding that this contention is not borne out by record and therefore has no substance. The applicant in his application, represented that the field in dispute had been in his possession for a long time. As against this his own witness Motilal admitted before the trial court that the land in dispute was at the time of his making the statement (dated 14-8-53 ). In the possession of the opposite party and that the opposite party had been in possession thereof for the last 5 or 6 years. This gives a direct lie to the statement of the applicant that the opposite party was never in possession. The learned counsel for the applicant has frankly conceded before me that even to this day possession over the field in disputes was that of the opposite party Dhana Ram, but he argued that his possession was not bona fide. Entries in the Record of Rights are made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the Marwar Tenancy Act. Sec. 76 of this Act lays down that all disputed entries in the Record of Rights shall be attested by the parties interested and all disputes shall be decided in accordance with secs. 77,78 and 79. Sec. 77 of the Act deals with the decision of disputes as to the class of tenure and as such is not applicable to this case. Sec. 78 deals with disputes regarding lands and as such it is also not a relevant. Sec. 79 lays down that all other disputes regarding entries in the record of rights shall be decided on the basis of possession. In this case the possession over the land in dispute was admittedly of the opposite party and the applicant failed to establish that his possession was in the capacity of a trespasser. It is clear from the statement of Motilal who was produced by the appli-cant himself that Dhana Ram opposite party had been in possession of the land in dispute since 5 or 6 years. The Assistant Record Officer was therefore not correct in disregarding the fact of possession while deciding this dispute and the lower appellate courts were therefore justified in ordering that the name of the opposite party who was admittedly in possession should be recorded in the Record of Rights. I see no ground to interfere with this finding. The revision is hereby rejected. .;