TIWARI, M.—This is an appeal under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 10.3.05 of Divisional Commissioner Jaipur passed in appeal No. 14/2004.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the second appeal are that the respondents-applicants had filed an application under Section 136 of the Act before Sub-Divisional Officer Navalgarh for recording of the disputed land as `rasta' in the revenue record and depiction of this `rasta' in the revenue map. Sub-Divisional Officer rejected this application vide his order dated 22.1.04 against which an appeal under section 75 of the Act was preferred before Divisional Commissioner Jaipur who allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for re-hearing and re-decision in light of the observations made by him. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment dated 10.3.05 of Divisional Commissioner Jaipur, the instant second appeal is filed in this court.

3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the respondents-applicants wanted to change the location and position of the `rasta' from khasra No. 74 to khasra No. 72 which is not possible under Section 136 of the Act; which can be invoked only to correct clerical error in the revenue record or any such error to which both the parties agree to have been committed or when any error is detected during the course of inspection by the Land Records Officer. Neither a new `rasta' can be created nor existing `rasta' can be shifted under the provisions of section 136 of the Act. Sub-Divisional Officer had rightly rejected the application but Divisional Commissioner Jaipur illegally allowed the appeal and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to create `rasta' under the provision of Rule 369 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules 1957 (in short `the Rules of 1957'). Rule 369 of the Rules of 1957 is not attracted here. This rule is about the responsibility of Sub-Divisional Officer for correct maintenance of the maps and records of the Sub-Division. So the impugned judgment of Divisional Commissioner should be set aside.

5. Opposing the contentions of the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that the concerned Gram Panchayat has held that the existing `rasta' passes through khasra No. 72 and 73 and not through khasra No. 74 as shown by the dotted line in the map. In old settlement there was no `rasta' in khasra No. 74; but it is illegally shown during the course of settlement. Whereas this `rasta' should have been carved in khasra No. 72 and 73 as per its real location. Sub-Divisional Officer has been empowered under rule 369 of the Rules of 1957 for making correction in the map. Thus, Divisional Commissioner has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and in remanding the case to Sub-Divisional Officer for re-hearing and re-decision in light of his responsibilities under Rule 369 of the Rules of 1957. The learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the material on record.

7. Sub-Divisional Officer Navalgarh has rejected the application of section 136 of the Act mainly on the grounds that the dispute under consideration is neither a clerical error nor an error on which both the parties agree to have been committed, nor any error detected during any inspection of the land record. It is also stated by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the `rasta' shown in the map through dotted lines in khasra No. 74 is sought to be shifted without impleading the khatedar tenant of khasra No. 74. This impugned order of Sub-Divisional Officer has been set aside by the Divisional Commissioner by his judgment dated 10.3.05. Divisional Commissioner has remitted the case for re-hearing and re-decision to Sub-Divisional Officer who has been directed to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document