This is a second appeal against an appellate order of the Gollector, Sikar, dated 13.10.1952 in a case relating to grant of matmi. 2. We have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. In view of the order that we are making in the case it is unnecessary to express any opinion as regards the merits at this stage. Suffice to observe that all the subordinate officers who have had occasion to handle this case have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law on the subject. The procedure for holding enquiries in matmi cases is set out in rule 27 of the Jaipur State Matmi Rule, 1945. The powers of Officers to order resumption or sanction matmi has been set out in appendix D of the rules. The Tehsildar has no authority to pass any order of resumption or sanction of matmi in such cases. He is, after holding the enquiry, bound to submit the record to the Nazim (S.D.O. if the later is competent to order resumption or to sanction matmi and in all other cases he should submit the record to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector). In the present case the Nazim had no jurisdiction to order resumption or sanction matmi as matmi is claimed by a Chela of the deceased Nihang Mahant Naraindas. There exists no prior sanction of the Government for nomination of the Chela by the deceased Mahant. Besides, the matmi is disputed by Ganeshdas and thus there exists a dispute in the case. The provisions of rule 27(21) of the Matmi Rules, 1945, will therefore, govern the case. According to this procedure the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), as he was not empowered to dispose of the case, should have first satisfied himself that the enquiry in the case was complete. In case he was of the opinion that it was incomplete he should have remanded the case for further enquiry or could have conducted the further enquiry himself after giving proper notice to the parties. After that the record should have been submitted to the Board with his own remarks. The learned Collector on the other hand has treated the order of the Tehsildar as a legal and competent decision and thought he has reversed the same on merits, yet has directed the Tehsildar to take necessary steps for grant of matmi in favour of Ganeshdas. The learned Collector on the other hand has treated the order of the Tehsildar as a legal and competent decision and thought he has reversed the same on merits, yet has directed the Tehsildar to take necessary steps for grant of matmi in favour of Ganeshdas. Obviously this is in direct violation of the provisions stated above. 3. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Collector Sikar and remand the case back to him with the remarks that he should proceed in accordance with rule 27 as stated above.