This is a reference from the Division Bench consisting of Sarvshri Balwantsingh and Gajendrasingh sent to this larger Bench in the following terms :—

"Is khasra girdawari a record of right and does an application lie for correction of khasra girdawari entries before the Land Records Officer."

The Division Bench has pointed out, that in their opinion correction of khasra girdawari entries is uncalled for as that record is not a record of rights within the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.

Some of the counsel who appeared before us at first challenged the jurisdiction of this larger Bench to adjudicate upon this question in view of the Notification issued by the Government No. F. 2(172) Rev. D/GR/11/61, dated the 27th June, 1963 in which the jurisdiction of hearing of appeals against the correction of entries in the record of rights from the orders of the Assistant Collectors has been transferred to the Revenue Appellate Authority from first July, 1963. Some of the lawyers appearing were of the view that since the Board was already seized of the matter it could adjudicate upon such matters. The Board functioned in dual capacity as pointed out by Shri Roop Chand Sogani both as the Director of Land Records as well as the Board of Revenue constituted for other purposes. Shri S. N. Pareek contended that under sec. 11 of the Land Revenue Act the Chairman or a Member sitting singly may refer the case on a question of law for the opinion of a Bench. In his view no reference by Division Bench is provided to a larger Bench. Shri B. K. Pareek, Government Advocate and Shri R. C. Sogani, Advocate however laid stress on the fact that a convention has grown in this Court when questions of law referred to by Division Bench being heard and disposed of by the larger or Full Bench of this very Board. Thus the Board has the jurisdiction to dispose of such matters. On this question of jurisdiction we are clearly of the opinion that this was a reference made by Division Bench to a larger Bench on a point of law which is of great public importance and a decision on this important question of law in our opinion would greatly help to decrease or increase the litigation according to the decision this Board may take. This reference by the Division Bench was made long before the jurisdiction of the Board to hear appeals against the Land Records Officer came to an end by the Government Notification referred to above and thus this reference to the larger Bench in our opinion is quite competent. Besides a point of law has been referred for decision by the larger Bench and this does not involve a decision of an appeal by the Revenue Board relating to the land record matters. The argument of some of the lawyers that this reference from the Division Bench to a larger Bench was incompetent and was in contravention of the provisions of the Act has absolutely no force. A member sitting singly as well as a Division Bench could always make a reference to a larger Bench when found necessary and this practice has grown in the Board and no infringement of any provision of the Land Revenue Act has been observed. There is no doubt that sec. 11 speaks of a reference by the Chairman or a Member sitting singly on a point of law to a Bench but there is nothing to prevent a Bench referring a point of law to larger or a full Bench because the jurisdiction of the Board can be exercised as laid down in sec. 10 of the same Act either by the Chairman or any other Member of the Board sitting singly or by a Bench of the Board consisting of two or more Members. Therefore this larger Bench is fully competent to take a decision on this important point of law of a reference made by a Division Bench. This objection , therefore of some of the members of the Bar is ruled out.

We have carefully gone into the order of reference passed by the Division Bench to this larger Bench. The practice has grown that applications under sec. 136 of the Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called the Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document