C. M. LODHA, C. J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against two orders of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan; one by the Single Member of the Board (Ex. 5) dated January 21, 1969 and the other by the Division Bench of the Board (Ex. 6) dated January 28, 1977, whereby the Board held that the petitioners are not entitled to get their names recorded in record of rights in respect of land measuring 319 Bighas and 2 Biswas, in Khasra No. 609, situated in Mouza Gangrar.
(2.) IT is the admitted case of the parties that Mouza Gangrar was a Jagir village of Rao Manohar Singhji of Bedla, who, by a registered sale-deed dated May 24, 1958 sold the land in question to the petitioners. The petitioners' case is that on resumption of the Jagir of Rao Manohar Singhji with effect from August 21, 1954, the land in question became his "khatedari" land under section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. IT appears that after purchasing the land in question, the petitioners made an application to the Gram Panchayat, for mutating their names as "khatedars" in place of Rao Manohar Singhji, but, under the instructions of the Collector of the District, the Gram Panchayat, ultimately, disallowed the petitioners' request, by its order dated February 3, 1963. Thereupon, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, who dismissed the same by his order dated March 3, 1963 (Ex. 3 ). Aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, the petitioners filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which allowed the petitioners' appeal by its order dated March 5, 1964 (Ex. 4) and directed that the petitioners' names may be mutated and entries may be made in the revenue records in their favour. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Revenue Authority, respondents Nos. 1 to 4, who are villagers of Mouza Gangrar, filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, which was laid before a Single Member of the Board, who, by his order dated January 21, 1969 (Ex. 5), held that in view of the provisions contained in sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, "khatedari" rights could not accrue in respect of the land in question, which was covered by clauses (2) and (3) of section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. IT was observed that the land in question was used for casual or occasional cultivation in the bed of the tank and that it was covered by water and used for the purposes of growing "singhara" or the like produce. In this view of the matter, he allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Autho-rity and restored that of the Collector. The petitioners then filed special appeal which too was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Board by its order dated January 28, 1977 (Ex. 6 ). Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that under sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, the land in question, which was "khudkasht" land of the Jagirdar, will be deemed to be held by the Jagirdar as a "khatedar" tenant as from the date of resumption of the Jagir. It is submitted that in the present case, the Jagir was resumed on August 21, 1954 and the "khatedari" rights, which had vested in the Jagirdar, could not be taken away by section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which deals with the question of accrual of "khatedari" right after coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. However, as we shall presently show, it is not necessary to decide this question of law in the present case inasmuch as this petition can be disposed of an other grounds. We should, therefore, not be taken to express any view in the matter either way. It may be pointed out that the petitioners made an application under section 125 of the Land Revenue Act, which reads as under, - "125. Settlement of disputes as to entries in record of rights.- -All other disputes regarding entries in the record of rights shall be decided on the basis of possession. (2) If in the course of enquiry in to a dispute under this section the Land Records Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in possession, he shall ascertain by summary inquiry who is the person best entitled to possession, and shall decide the dispute accordingly. (3) No order as to possession passed under this section shall debar any person from establishing his right to the property in any civil or revenue court having jurisdiction. " On a bare reading of section 125, extracted above, it is amply clear that the disputes regarding entries in the record of rights have to be decided on the basis of possession, and the Land Records Officer is not required to go into the question of title. It is further clear that if any party is aggrieved by the order passed under section 125 of the Land Revenue Act, it shall not be debarred from establishing its right to the property in civil or revenue court having jurisdiction. The Revenue Appellate Authority has no doubt observed regarding possession of the land in dispute as follows,- "there is no dispute regarding possession. The respondents have not taken objection that they are in possession of the disputed land. Before transfer, thereat of this land was deposited by the transferor and after transfer the transferees deposited the rent. Therefore, as regards possession, there appears to be no dispute. " However, attention may be drawn to the finding arrived at by the learned Collector on the question of possession. He has observed that the land in question (land in the bed of the tank) was not under cultivation and therefore, it was not assessed at the aforesaid rate and further that Singharas and lotus flowers are grown in the land and it is used by general public for both bathing and washing and thus, the land in the bed of the tank is used by the public in which no "khatedari" rights can accrue. It appears that the attention of the Revenue Appellate Authority was not drawn to these findings of the Collector and as already observed above, so far as the Revenue Board is concerned, both the judgments of the Board are a silent on the question. We may point out, even at the risk of repetition, that under section 125 of the Land Revenue Act, under which the proceedings in question had taken place, it was the duty of the Land Records Officer as well as the appellate and revisional authorities to determine the question of possession. It is provided in the section itself that the Land Records Officer is to satisfy himself by summary inquiry as to who is the person best entitled to possession and shall decide the dispute ace- ordingly. If any party is aggrieved by an order passed under sec. 125, he has the remedy to establish his right to the land in any civil or revenue court. Since the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan has not decided the dispute on the basis of possession, we have no alternative but to quash the impugned orders of the Board. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition in part, set aside the impugned orders by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and direct the Board to decide the matter afresh on the lines indicated above and in the light of the provisions of sec. 125 of the Land Revenue Act. It goes without saying that if the Board think it proper to get an inquiry made into the question of possession, it will be open to them to send the case back to the lower authorities for inquiry into the matter. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. .;