The Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding property or rights claimed by or on behalf of the Government or by any person against the Government under section 11(3) of the TLR & LR Act.

By this common judgment and order we propose to dispose of Civil Rule Nos. 73 and 74 of 1979 as these two petitions have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 1.6.76 passed by the learned Director of Settlement and Land Records, Government of Tripura in Revision Case Nos. 81 and 82 of 1975.

2. The two petitions under section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960, for short, TLR & LR Act, were filed before the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the petition of the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 73 of 1979 was registered as Revision Case No. 82 of 1975 and the other petition was registered as Revision Case No. 81 of 1975. The petitioners of Civil Rule No. 73 of 1979 claimed an area of 7 drones 6 kanis equivalent to 47.29 acres of land on the southern half of C.S. Plot' No. 7272 of mouja Gandhigram as belonging to their settled land in old jote No. 31 under K.T. No. 284. Similarly, petitioners of Civil Rule No. 74 of 1979 claimed similar area of land on the northern half of the said plot as belonging to their settled land of jote No. 29 under Ex. K. T. No. 284. Toe Revision petitions were dismissed by the impugned order. The petitioners claimed both plots of land on the ground that lands were settled by Maharaja Kirit Bikram Kishore Deb Barma Manikya Bahadur, respondent No. 3 on payment of nazarana and also yearly rents. According to petitioners, they also took over possession of the entire land and even after vesting of the said plot of land in the State Government under the provisions of section 134 of the TLR & LR Act they have been possessing the same. When the settlement operation was going on, the constituted attorney of respondent No. 3 was approached regarding the preparation of record of right in the name of the petitioners and it was told that the petitio­ners had been shown as jotedars of the land in question. In the return submitted by respondent No. 3 under section 144 (6) of TLR & LR Act, however, the petitioners took a copy of the Khatian in 1974 and on perusal of the same come to know for the first time that the land was shown in the revenue record as khash land of respondent No. 3. It has been alleged that as the petitioners were raiyats under the Government after vesting of the land their names should have been recorded in respect of the disputed land as raiyats. For correction of the said revenue record petitions under section 95 of the TLR & LR Act were filed before the Director of Settlement & Land Records which were rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Director the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. We may quote below section 95 of the TLR & LR Act : "95. Revision-The State Government or the Collector may, at any time, either on his own motion or on the application of any party, call for the records of any proceedings before any revenue officer subordinate to him for the purpose of 'satisfying himself as to the legality or the propriety of any order passed by such revenue Officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit:

Provided that he shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any right between private persons without having given to the parties interested notice to appear and be heard."

4. Reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 29 of 1976 (Agartala Bench). Learned Single Judge considered the language of the aforesaid section 95 and also compared the said section with section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and section 95 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act and also con­sidered the decisions of this Court in Abdul Gani Sarkar vs. Assam Board of Revenue, A. I. R. 1970 Assam & Nagaland, 82, Satyaranjan Paul Majnmder vs. Assam Board of Revenue A. I. R. 1977 Gauhati, 83, and Thokchom Parijat Singh vs. Maibam Jugi Singh in Civil Rule No. 1 of 1975 decided on 31. 5. 79 (I