ARORA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Poosa Ram and respondent No. 7 Mani Ram s/o Kishna Ram Jat, were the recorded Khatedar tenants of 32 Bighas one Biswa of land bearing old Khasra Number 26 and new Khasra Numbers 368, 374, 377 and 379, situated in village Dariyasar tehsil Nohar district Sri Ganganagar. Earlier to the last settlement, two Bighas of this land, situated in new Khasra Number 368, was entered in the Revenue Record as the Agricultural land. In the last settlement, these two Bighas of land was entered as "gair Mumkin Aabadi land". The entry was made without notice to the petitioner and respondent No. 7 - the Khatedars of this land. After the settlement Operations were over, when the petitioner came to know that his land has been entered in the revenue record as the Gair Mumkin Aabadi land, he moved an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (for short, 'the Act') before the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Land Record Officer, Nohar, for the correction of the entry. The Land Record Officer, Nohar, by its order dated 1. 8. 78, allowed the application filed by the petitioner and ordered for correction of the entry. He, also, directed the Tehsildar, Nohar, vide Annexure 3, to make necessary Correction in the Jamabandi. In pursuance to this order, necessary corrections in the revenue record were made. Dissatisfied with the order dated 1. 8. 78, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Nohar, ordering for the correction of the entry, Sarvashri Mani Ram, Narain, Budha Ram and Megha Ram filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (Camp Sri Ganganagar ). The Revenue Appellate Authority, by its judgment dated 18. 9. 89 allowed the appeal filed by Mani Ram and others, set-aside the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar on the ground that the Sub- Divisional Officer (Land Record Officer), Nohar, after the settlement operations are over under Section 136 of the Act, had no power to correct any entry in the record. The petitioner and respondent No. 7 Mani Ram, aggrieved with the order dated 18. 9. 79, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. The appeal, filed by Poosa Ram and Mani Ram, was dismissed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue by his judgment dated 29. 10. 85. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that after the settlement operations are over, the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to correct the entry in the revenue record and the only remedy left with the applicant is to file a revenue suit for correction of the entries. A review petition filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was, also, dismissed by the Board by the order dated 31. 12. 85. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 29. 10. 85 passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the judgment dated 18. 9. 79 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (Camp Sri Ganganagar), the. petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) THE controversy involved in the present case is : whether correction of the entry in the Record of Rights/annual Register can be made by the Land Record Officer under Section 136 of the Act after the survey or settlement operations are over? Chapter VII of the Act deals with the survey and settlement/record operations. Sections 106 to 112 of the Act deal with survey or re- survey of the land and preparation of maps and Field Book. Sections 113 to 127 of the Act deal with various aspects and disputes relating to preparation of the Record of Rights. Sections 128 to 130 of the Act deal with the boundary disputes, obligation of the holders as to boundary marks, penalty for injury to or removal of the boundary marks. Section 131 to 137 of the Act deal with the maintenance of maps, field book, annual register and to up date them by recording the changes due to succession or transfer after survey or settlement operations are over. Section 131 of the Act deals with the maintenance of the maps and the field book after the survey and record operations are over. It casts a duty on the Land Record Officer to maintain maps and the field book in accordance with the Rules and cause annually or at such longer interval as the State Government may prescribe, record in the maps and field book all changes in the boundary of each village or the portion of a village, estate or field. Section 131 further mandates the Land Record Officer to correct any error which are shown to have been made in such map or the field book. Section 132 of the Act deals with the maintenance of the Annual Register by the Land Record Officer after the survey/settlement operations are over. Section 133 of the Act casts a duty on the person obtaining possession by succession, transfer or otherwise of any property or right or interest on any land or portion thereof to be recorded in the revenue register, to bring to the notice of the village Patwari and report to the Tehsildar of the Tehsil within three months from the date on which he obtained such possession. Section 134 provides a fine for negligence and Section 135 provides the procedure for making the necessary entry after the receipt of the record. Section 136 of the Act deals with the decision of the dispute. The controversy, in the present case, centres round the interpretation of Section 136 of the Act, which reads as under: - "section 136. Decision of Disputes. All disputes respecting the class or tenure of any tenant or regarding the rent or revenue payable or regarding entries in the annual register, shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 123 or Section 124 or Section 125, as the case may be. " Section 136 of the Act deals with the settlement of disputes relating to: (i) Class or tenure of any tenant (Section 123), (ii) land or revenue payable (Section 124); and (iii) entry in the annual register (Section 125), which are to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Sections 123 or 124 or 125 of the Act. Annual register has been defined in Section 132 of the Act. After completion of the survey/settlement operations, as per Section of the Act, it is the duty of the Land Record Officer to maintain the Record of Rights and for that purpose, shall cause to prepare a set or amended set, as the case may be annually or at such longer interval as the State Government may prescribe, of the registers enumerated in Section 114. The Land Record Officer is further obliged to record in the annual register in the prescribed manner, all the changes that may take placed and any transaction that may affect any of the rights or interest. Maintenance of the land record is a continuous process. It aims in keeping the record up to date. After the completion of the settlement/survey operation, a duty is cast upon the Sub- Divisional Officer, who is Land Record Officer, to maintain up to date record of rights by recording necessary changes occurred from time to time affecting the rights and interest of the parties in any land or profit thereof and to correct errors in the annual register. Whether Section 136 of the Act confers any power on the Land Record Officer to * correct any error crept in the record of rights during the settlement/survey operation or it is limited to the dispute relating to the class or nature of any tenant or regarding the land or revenue payable or regarding entries in the annual register referred in Sections 123, 124 and 125 of the Act; If Section 136 of the Act reference is only to the decision of the dispute with respect to the dispute under these Section then there was no necessity for enacting this Section and the dispute mentioned in these Sections (namely Sections 123, 124 and 125) would have been decided under these provisions itself. The interpretation that this Section 136 confers no power and is merely operative in nature and draws attention to he provisions of Sections 123, 124 and 125 only, will make the provisions of Section 136 of the Act as redundant and have been inserted without any purpose. A construction which attributes redundancy to the Legislature cannot be accepted except for compelling reasons. When the Legislature makes certain provision in an Act, the presumption is that it is for some purpose and every part of a statute has its effect because the Legislature never waste its words or say anything in vain. The Rule of interpretation is that if possible, a meaning should be given to every word and the Section in the Statute unless there is a reason to the contrary. If during the settlement/survey operations the record has been prepared by the Staff with arbitrariness then this arbitrariness in the preparation of the record can be cured and necessary correction can be made under Section 136 of the Act and it cannot be said that after the settlement/survey operations are over, the aggrieved party has no remedy except to file a suit. If Section 136 of the Act is read with Sections 123,124,125, 131 and 132 of the Act then it is clear that the errors crept-in-during the settlement operation in the Record of Rights or the entry made by the Staff in preparing the record is with arbitrariness then those errors can be corrected by the Land Record Officer under Section 136 of the Act. Looking to the place where Section 136 of the Act has been inserted and the object behind it, clearly show that the intention of the Legislature in enacting this Section 136 of the Act was to give powers to the competent authority to correct an error crept in the Annual Registers during the Settlement/survey Operations which are the part of the Revenue Records. The Land Record Officer has, therefore, power to correct the error which has been crept in the revenue record during the settlement operations but he cannot convert the nature of the land. In the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jai Narain vs. The Board of Revenue and ors (1), it has been held that 'changes effecting the rights and interest in the land of the holders may be recorded by the Land Record Officer in the annual register, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him under Section 132 of the Act. So far as the provisions of Section 136 of the Act are concerned, they provide for the decision of the dispute relating to correction of the entries in accordance with the provisions of Section 123, 124 and 125 of the Act. The provisions of Sections 131, 132 and 136 of the Act do not authorise the Land Record Officer after the close of the survey and record operations to convert any Gair Mumkeen Land into cultivatory Barani land. " The Division Bench of this Court, in this case, therefore, held that the provisions of Sections 131, 132 and 136 of the Act, read together, authorise the Land Record Officer to correct the mistake crept in the Record of Rights after the settlement/survey operations are over, but not during the pendency of these operations. In another Division Bench judgment of this Court in : the State of Rajasthan vs. Than Singh and Ors. (2), the question for adjudication was : whether any application under Section 136 for correction of the entry in the Record of Rights is maintainable after the settlement operations are over and it was held that "from the reading of these Sections (Section 136 and 125) it, of course, appears that the S. D. O. or the Collector has no jurisdiction to decide any question relating to correction of the entry in the land record while the survey or record operations are in progress in the area, in which the land in question is situated, but the same cannot be said after such operations are over. An application for correction of the annual record or the Register of Rights would lie under Section 136 if there is any dispute regarding any entry after the settlement operations are over. " The Division Bench further observed in the later part of the judgment that "the dispute regarding entries in the annual register after the expiry of the settlement operations, clearly falls within the ambit of Section 136 of the Act and they shall be decided by him in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Act on the basis of the possession after the settlement operations are over. " The Division Bench in Than Singh's case, also, held that "the Land Record Officer, under Sections 136 and 125 of the Act, has power to correct the erroneous entries in the annual registers which are part of the Record of Rights. " We fully agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Than Singh's case that the Land Record Officer is competent under Sections 136 and 125 of the Act after the settlement operations are over, to correct the error crept in the Record of Rights during the settlement operation.
(3.) IN the present case, the land was earlier entered as the agricultural land and the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 Mani Ram were shown as the Khatedar tenants of the land in dispute. IN the last settlement operations, the land was entered as 'aabadi' land. The petitioner, therefore, moved an application for the correction of the entry. The application filed by the petitioner was allowed but the order, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Record Officer), Nohar, was set- aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (Camp Sri Ganganagar) and affirmed by the Board of Revenue solely on the ground that the Land Record Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding the correction of the entry under Section 136 of the Act. The view taken by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as by the Board of Revenue, is not correct. The order, passed by the Land Record Officer, was not without jurisdiction. He has powers, under Section 136 of the Act, to decide the dispute relating to the correction of the entry, i. e. , to correct the errors which crept in the Record during the settlement/survey operation. He acted within his jurisdiction and passed the order. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue have not decided the appeals on merit and dismissed the same merely on the technical ground relating to maintainability of the case. The orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (Camp Sri Ganganagar) as well as by the Board of Revenue, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. (8 ). IN the result, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The judgment dated 18. 9. 79, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (Camp Sri Ganganagar) (Annexure 4) as well as the judgment dated 29. 10. 85 (Annexure 5) and the order dated 31. 12. 85 passed in the review petition by the Board of Revenue, are quashed and set-aside and the case is remanded to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (Camp Sri Ganganagar) to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law after notice to the parties. .;