- (1.) THIS is a reference from the Settlement Commissioner dated 12. 2. 1962 u/s. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 recommending that the judgment given by the Asstt. Settlement Officer dated 14. 12. 56 should be cancelled. The Settlement Commissioner has stated that by the above order the Settlement Officer wrongly directed that Khasra No. 12 in village Panwadi, Tehsil Nawan, consisting of 293 bighas and 9 biswas of gair-mumkin Pahad should be entered in the Khudkasht of the Raja of Kuchaman. He is of the opinion that such a big chuck of land which is not assessed to any rent cannot be allowed in the Khudkasht of the Jagir-dar. When this case came up for hearing earlier an objection was raised that the Settlement Commissioner who had made the reference had no jurisdiction to do so because the settlement operations had terminated long before the order of reference was made. Accordingly, therefore, further information was required to be collected, with regard to the actual date of the closure of the settlement operations.
(2.) WE are now told that the settlement operations closed on 20. 2. 1958 as shown on page 1071 of the Rajasthan Gazette and this reference was made by the Settlement Commissioner in 1962. The contention of the counsel on behalf of the respondent the Raja of Kuchaman is that the correction sought by the Settlement Commissioner pertains to a matter of record of rights and is not connected with the assessment of rent or other settlement matter. That being so the reference is incompetent as the Settlement Commissioner was not working as an appellate Records Officer, when he made the reference, nor was the Asstt. Settlement Officer working as a Records Officer, subordinate to the Settlement Commissioner. U/s. 82 the Settlement Commissioner can make a reference only with regard to the orders passed by his subordinate Officers. The Government Advocate's reply is that a Settlement Commissioner can also make this reference u/s. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act because the entry in the record of rights is essentially, a settlement matter. We have considered the arguments advanced by both the sides. It is an admitted fact that when the reference was made in 1962, the settlement operations in the particular village of Tehsil Nawan had come to a close. During the currency of the settlement operations, power and functions under chapter VII and VIII of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, relating to survey and record operations in the former Chapter and settlement operations such as assail classification and assessment of rent under the subsequent Chapter VIII, for the sake of convenience, are normally given to the Settlement Officers. They exercise full jurisdiction over these two matters during the currency of the settlement operations but on the closure of such operations the pending files relating to survey and record operations u/s. 127 are transferred to the Collector, if no additional Land Records Officer is permanently appointed. Similarly, under chapter VIII, sec. 181, all applications pending before the Settlement Officer, unless a permanent Settlement Officer is appointed by the Government, are transferred to the Collector, who has the powers of a Settlement Officer for the disposal of such cases. Thus the two functions of the Settlement Officers after the closure of the settlement operations are bifurcated and files are transferred accordingly. The Government Advocate has not been able to make out a case that this matter with regard to the entry in favour of the Raja of Kuchaman was pending at the time of the closure of the settlement. It may thus be understood that this correction which the Settlement Commissioner has sought in the record does not relate to a settlement matter i. e. matters dealt with in Chapter VIII, such as rent rates, determination of rents,, term of settlement etc. It was, essentially, not a settlement matter, but a matter relating to the record of rights. The Collector, therefore, as the Land Records Officer and now the Sub-Division Officer who has been designated as the Land Records Officer is not a subordinate Officer to the Settlement Commissioner and, therefore, u/s. 82, the Settlement Commissioner had no power to call for the record of the records Officer in order to test the propriety or the legality of the order passed by him. The Director of Land Records alone was empowered u/s. 82 to examine the record of any case decided or proceeding held by the Records Officer, who is subordinate to him, and, if necessary to refer the same to the Board of Revenue for orders. Thus, the reply given by the Government Advocate that the settlement Commissioner had power to refer such matters is completely without foundation. We, consequently, hold that this reference by the Settlement Commissioner is incompetent and must be rejected. Before we finally part with this case, we way however, observe that the Board of Revenue is also the Director of Land Records and since this case, in which Records Officer has made certain entries of a large area of gair-mumkin land in favour of an ex-jagirdar by entering it as his Khudkasht, has come to our notice, we may as Director of Land Records take notice of this case and call for the record for examination u/s 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, in order to test the legality and propriety of the order passed by him, and to pass appropriate orders after hearing the opposite party. Therefore, a notice may be served on the counsel for the ex-jagirdar of Kuchaman that he should take notice and show cause why the order passed by the Asstt. Settlement Officer dated 14. 12. 1956 should not be set aside. For this the counsel for the ex-jagirdar should appear on 15. 7. 1966. The Government Advocate may also take notice to be present on that date on behalf of the Government. . ;