- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, dated 6. 10. 1965, whereby he accepted the appeal against the order of the Additional Collector, Jodhpur, dated 20. 7. 1964, and set aside the order of the Addl. Collector on the ground that the Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the appellants for setting aside the ex-parte order passed against them) by the Record Officer, after the conclusion of the record and settlement operations.
(2.) THE dispute relates to Khasra Nos. 424 and 425 in the Lawera Khurd, Tehsil Osian. It transpires that the above Khasra numbers were recorded in the name of the appellants during the settlement and record operations. An objection was filed by the respondent before the Record Officer contesting the claim of the appellants. This objection was heard exparte by the A. R. O. and was accepted on 26. 6. 58. It was held that these fields should be recorded in the name of the respondent. THEreafter, the record and settlement operations in this area came to a close. No application for setting aside the ex-parte order was filed before the Record Officer during the continuance of the Record operations. Subsequently, however, an application was filed on behalf of the appellants before the Addl. Collector for setting aside the above order of the Record Officer. THE learned Addl. Collector heard both the parties and set aside the order of the A. R. O. dated 26 8-58. Having felt aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. THE main ground of attack was that the Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the present appellants after the close of the settlement operations. THE learned Revenue Appellate Authority accepted this contention and set aside the order of the Addl. Collector. Hence this appeal. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the powers given to the revenue courts under Secs. 65 and 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act have not been taken away by any provision of the Act after the close of the record operations. Therefore, the Collector who is the permanent Land Record Officer of the District under Sec. 20 has jurisdiction to entertain applications under these Sections. On the face of it, this argument is fallacious. As has been correctly pointed out by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority in his impugned order, the only remedy available to an aggrieved person after the close of the settlement operations lies by way of a suit u/s. 125 (3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Sec. 127 deals with application and proceedings pending at the closure of such operation. It says when the survey and record operations as the case may be are closed by a Notification under Sec. 106 or Sec. 107, all applications and proceedings then pending before the Addl. Land Record Officer shall, if no such officer has been appointed permanently, be transferred to the Collector. It is undisputed that in the present case the application was made after the close of the operations, and, therefore, it will not attract to provisions of Sec. 127, as it was not pending at the close of operation. The learned Addl. Collector has, therefore, exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the application filed subsequently for setting aside the order passed by the Record Officer earlier during the course of the record operations. In the result, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and hereby reject this appeal. Holding the appeal to be vexatious, we award Rs. 50/- as costs to the respondent. .;