This appeal against the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 29.4.1954 discloses an interesting state of affairs. On 12.10.53 the respondents Baddula and Mahtab presented an application to theGollector,SawaiMadhopur, with the allegations that Khasra numbers 89 and 41 which are in the Khatedari of the appellants, for which Parcha chakbandi have been issued to them, had since long been providing pasture land for their cattle and hence the Parcha be cancelled under sec. 84 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act Secs. 84 and 85 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act Tun follows :— 84. "(1) A tenant shall be liable to ejectment from his holding:— (a) on the ground of any act or omission detrimental to the land in that holding, or inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let: or (b) on the ground that he or any person holding from him has broken a condition breach of which he is liable to be ejected. Provided that the planting of trees or the making of an improvement in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the use of a holding for the purpose of grazing or raising stock, including horses, of the construction of enclosures, suitable for stock-raising stall not constitute a ground for ejectment under this section. (2) In a proceeding under this section any person claiming through the tenant may be joined as a party and where the cause of action is based wholly or partly on any act or omission or breach of condition by a sublessee or other transferee, such sub-lessee or other transferee shall be joined as a party". 85. "If, on service of notice by the Tehsildar under sec. 83 or 84 a tenant contests the notice, the Tehsildar shall forward the case to the Nazim, who shall try the case in accordance with the procedure laid down for the trial of suits". 2. Evidently sec. 84 provides for ejectment for an act or omission detrimental to the land in dispute inconsistent with the purposes for which it was let or for a breach of condition. The application, therefore, does not at all come within the purview of this section. This application was forwarded to the Tehsildar Sawai Madhopur for enquiry and report. 2. Evidently sec. 84 provides for ejectment for an act or omission detrimental to the land in dispute inconsistent with the purposes for which it was let or for a breach of condition. The application, therefore, does not at all come within the purview of this section. This application was forwarded to the Tehsildar Sawai Madhopur for enquiry and report. The Tehsildar reported that the included in the village pastures was not appropriate for grazing of cattle and as the Khasra numbers in dispute have been used for this purpose the Khatedari parcha issued in favour of the appellants be cancelled. The Assistant Collectors agreed with this report and submitted the case to the Collector, who in turn forwards the papers to the Commissioner. The Commissioner at first made a reference to the Settlement Officer Kotah to ascertain if the Collectors recommendation could justifiably be acceded to. But before any reply could be received from the Settlement Officer Kotah the respondents submitted an application for early action and on 29.4.1954 the Collectors recommendation was accepted. The appellants were not heard by the learned Commissioner. 3. We have not been shown any law under which the appellant could be deprived of their khatedari rights by any of the subordinate officers. If the respondents claimed any easement by way of grazing their cattle over the land in dispute obviously the matter was within the cognizance of a civil court. If they wanted any correction in the record of rights they should have applied to the Assistant Collector vide item No. 17 or 18, Group D, Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, No. 1 of 1951, as the settlement operations in the area had come to a close. The khatedari parcha issued during the course of the settlement operations cannot be cancelled in this arbitrary manner nor can any land included in the appellants tenancy be taken out and handed over to the respondents for grazing their cattle. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the lower court and direct that the application presented by the respondent before the Collector shall stand dismissed.