This is an application in revision against an order of Tehsildar, Bayana, dated 2.7.53. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the Partal of Girdawari of Rabi Svt. 2009, the Tehsildar of Bayana found that there was a dispute between the parties in respect of the cultivation of the fields in question. After summary enquiry on the spot he found that the Rabi crop had been actually sown by the applicants. He, therefore ordered on 17.3.53 that the applicants name be entered in the khasra-girdawari of rabi Svt. 2009, as in possession of the land in question. Subsequently it however, came to his notice that although the applicants had actually sown the fields, the opposite party had been ordered by this Board in a case under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance to be re-instated over 1/4th of the area and that he had already been given symbolical possession in execution of that order. Consequently, he requested the Collector of Bharatpur to permit him to correct the entries accordingly; The Collector, while granting his request observed that actual possession should be given to the opposite-party in compliance of the Boards order. It is against this order that this revision has been filed before this Board. 3. I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the applicant ex parte as the opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice. It is obvious from the record that the opposite party had been given possession over l/4th of the area of the holding in compliance with the Boards order and that the Tehsildar ordered the recording of the name of the applicants as in possession of the entire holding in ignorance of the order of the Board. The Tehsildar was therefore, correct in recommending to the Collector that the name of the opposite party should be entered in the Khasra as in possession of 1/4th area in accordance with Boards order There is no doubt that application for correction of entries in the Land Records are triable by an S.D.O. under Item 18, Group-B of the First Schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1961, but in this case the Tehsildar while deciding the dispute regarding the cultivation during the Girdawari operations was acting as a Revenue Officer and not as a revenue court. He had the jurisdiction to order the making of such entries in the khasra-girdawari as were found by him to be true after a summary enquiry on the spot. If however, he subsequently came to learn that the other party has been placed in possession of the fields in dispute under order of the Board he was justified to amend the existing entries in accordance with the order of the Board. He however took extra precaution to obtain the permission of the Collector before altering the previous entries. It is thus clear that the action of the Tehsildar and the Collector to direct amendment of entries was merely in the nature of a ministerial Act in compliance of Boards order and according to the actual position on the spot rather than an order for the correction of old entries. As regards the Collectors remarks regarding actual delivery of possession, it appears from the records that the opposite party had already been delivered possession of l/4th share in the field in dispute in accordance with the procedure laid down for joint possession in Rule 122(2) of the rules made under sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. The Collectors observation that actual possession by getting the land ploughed on the spot may be given has no meaning and is more in the nature of an obiter dictum than a direction and can hardly be translated into action. The counsel for the opposite-party frankly conceded that the remarks of the Collector for actual transfer of possession were uncalled for and meaningless in the sense that the procedure laid down for delivery of joint possession does not envisage a physical transfer by ploughing the land. 4. In the circumstances, I see no force in the revision which is hereby rejected.