Hon'ble LODHA, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dated 28.12.10 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby a revision petition preferred by the respondent No. 5 herein, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Ahore u/Sec. 84 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short "the Act") against the judgment dated 17.2.10 of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur has been allowed.

2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that Kapur Puri, Mangal Puri sons of Shivpuri, Mool Puri s/o Pokar Puri and Smt. Jethi Bai widow of Pokar Puri transferred their 3/4th share in 8 bighas and 3 biswas agriculture land comprising Khasra No. 313 in village and Tehsil, Ahore in favour of Sumermal and Tejraj sons of Shri Gulab Chand by way of registered sale deed dated 2.6.69, who later, gifted the land to then Municipality, Ahore through a registered gift deed dated 11.8.77 and thus, Municipality, Ahore became khatedar tenant of the disputed land. However, subsequently during the settlement, the disputed land got entered back to the names of original Khatedars, the petitioners herein, notwithstanding the fact that they had already sold the land through a registered sale deed in favour of Sumermal and Tejraj.

3. The Municipality, Ahore was later converted into Gram Panchayat, Ahore and therefore, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Ahore filed an application u/S. 136 of Act before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Ahore against the State Government through Tehsildar, Ahore and petitioners herein, for recording the disputed land in the name of Gram Panchayat, Ahore as khatedar tenant. The application was rejected by the SDO by order dated 21.2.06 holding that the entry of the khatedar tenant recorded in the revenue cannot be rectified by invoking power u/S. 136 inasmuch as, the same cannot be considered to be a clerical error. An appeal preferred by the respondent No. 5 herein against the aforesaid order dated 21.2.06 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur u/S. 75 of the Act also failed for the parity of reasons.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.10 of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 5 herein. preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer u/S. 84 of the Act. The Board opined that technically the matter is not covered under Section 136 of the Act it is not a clerical mistake or a mistake where both the parties admitted the mistake to have taken place, however, holding it to be a glaring and blatant illegality committed by Settlement Department, exercising the power u/Sec. 9 of the Act with regard to superintendence and control over the subordinate Revenue Courts, by the order impugned, the Board of Revenue has directed for deletion of the names of the petitioners herein from the revenue record and to get the disputed land recorded back in the name of Gram Panchayat, Ahore. Hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Board of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction by invoking the powers u/S. 9 of the Act while deciding a revision petition. Learned counsel submitted that once it is accepted by the Board of Revenue that the application u/S. 136 of the Act was not maintainable, no relief could have been granted to the respondent Gram Panchayat on the said application. Learned counsel contended that u/S. 136, the SDO as Land Record Officer has limited jurisdiction to correct any clerical error which parties interested admit to have been made in the record of rights or which a Revenue Officer may notice during the course of its inspection in any register and therefore, no correction in the entries could be permitted by taking recourse to proceedings u/S.136 of the Act which is summary in nature.

6. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the rights are claimed by the Gram Panchayat, Ahore on the basis of gift deed dated 11.8.77 alleged to have been executed by Shri Sumermal and Tejraj in favour of the municipality, however, fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document