D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 470/96 Dhapu Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : 17.07.2007 Hon'ble Shri Rajesh Balia, J. Hon'ble Shri Manak Lall Mohta, J. Mr. J. L. Purohit for the appellant. Mr. L. R. Upadhayay for the State. The specific plea of the petitioner before the authorities was that the record was corrected by mutating the name of petitioner in place Gulia in pursuance of order no. 65 dated 23.01.1962 passed in an application moved before SDO and in pursuance thereof directions were issued by Tehsildar Desuri vide his order no. 505 dated 31 January 1962. The Revenue Appellate Authority in his order has referred to mentioning of the order no. 65 dated 23.01.1962 and order no. 505 dated 31.01.1962 in pursuance of which the entries in the land record made. Coupled with the specific allegation made by the respondent whose rights were going to be affected on account of corroborative piece of evidence available on the record before the revenue authority, it was at least required that revenue authority before interfering with the mutation entires which carry with them the presumption of correctness of facts stated therein, to have summoned the record of order no. 65 dated 23.1.1962 from the court of SDO Desoori and of Tehsildar in relation to order no.505 dated 31.01.1962. The matter has been sought to be initiated by Tehsildar and it was for them to have placed on record relevant material. It was not even their case that the two orders referred earlier did not exist. It the two orders did exist, they could not have been ignored without setting them at naught in appropriate proceedings. In the absence of two orders no presumption of transfer of lands in isolation of Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act could have at all been raised. The proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated on the assumption that land in question has been transferred in his favour by a member of Scheduled Castes respondent Gulia. No evidence has been led that such a transfer took place or that the petitioner has forcibly entered the possession by dispossessing gulia who is alleged to be in possession. On the face of the entries existing in the land record and the proceedings under Section 175 and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were instituted, the assumption of transfer in favour of the petitioners by a member of Scheduled Castes contrary to the provisions f Rajasthan Tenancy Act could not been drawn particularly keeping in view entries have already been made in pursuance of orders passed by competent officers without holding an inquiry into it. Apparently, if the entries have been made for correcting the record as per the directions of the SDO as alleged by the petitioner the question of coming into existence any transfer on dispossessing Gulia would not have arisen and the entire proceedings would have been wholly without foundation. Therefore, without holding any enquiry into the existence of this and the nature of the orders, no finding could have been recorded by any authorities that the petitioner has acquired land by transfer from Gulia. Apparently, all the revenue courts have acted on an unfounded presumption, without holding a proper inquiry merely on the basis of change in the entries in the record which existed from Samvat year 2014 to 2018. It appears to be a case of inadequate and incomplete inquiry. In view thereof the orders passed by the Revenue Autorities deserve to be set aside & the matter needs to be sent back to the SDO for holding an inquiry into the fact that mutation has taken plac in pursuance of order dated 23.01.1962 in file no. 65 of the SDO and order dated 31.01.1962 of Tehsildar Desuri in file no. 505 and if the orders are made under existing Rules, no proceedings under Section 175 could have been initiated against him. Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside and the matters is remanded to the SDO for holding an inquiry de novo on the basic issue about the reasons for which mutation has taken place in 1962. The inquiry should be concluded within a period of three months w.e.f. the date of first appearance of parties before SDO Desuri. The parties are directed to appear before the SDO Desuri on 03.09.2007. (Manak Lall Mohta), J. (Rajesh Balia), J. Anil Makawana