JUDGMENT Gopalji Mehrotra, J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that an order passed on the 23rd of October, 1954 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rasra, be quashed. 2. On 24th July, 1952 the Petitioner, along with opposite-parties Nos. 1 and 2, made an application before the Panchayati Adalat, Haldharpur, u/s 82 of the Panchayat Raj Act in which it was stated that the applicant, Vikram Singh, had been in possession over the disputed plot and that he was a hereditary tenant of the said plot. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 to this petition had no interest in the said plot but in the revenue papers their names had been incorrectly recorded by the Patwari. By means of the said application it is prayed that the Panchayati Adalat should declare the applicant to be the hereditary tenant of the plot. The opposite-parties Nos. 1 and 2 are purported to have signed this application. After the application had been filed, statements of opposite parties 1 and 2 are alleged to have been recorded by the Panchayati Adalat and thereafter the compromise was accepted. The Adalat passed an order u/s 82, declared the applicant a hereditary tenant of the disputed plot and further directed that the Patwari should correct the papers accordingly. The above order was passed by the Panchayati Adalat on the 14th September, 1952. In the year 1954 a revision was filed in the court of the S.D.M., Rasra against the said order of the Panchayati Adalat dated the 14th September, 1952 and on 28th July, 1954 the S.D.M. Rasra rejected the revision on the ground that it had been filed beyond time and that the Petitioners did not appear on the date of hearing in support of the petition. Thereafter, the opposite-parties 1 and 2 moved the S.D.M. for setting aside the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat on the ground that they had no knowledge of the proceedings, they had never affixed their thumb-marks on the compromise and that their statements had never been recorded by the Panchayati Adalat. It was also prayed that the original application in revision, which was dismissed for default, should be restored as opposite-parties had no knowledge of the date of hearing of the revision. It was also prayed that the original application in revision, which was dismissed for default, should be restored as opposite-parties had no knowledge of the date of hearing of the revision. The S.D.M. Rasra allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Panchayati Adalat of the 14th Sept., 1952 on the 23rd October, 1954 on the finding that the opposite-parties never affixed their signature either on the compromise or on their statements purported to have been recorded by the Panchayati Adalat. The S.D.M. was of opinion that the conduct of the panches and the Sarpanch was very suspicious. He, therefore, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat. 3. In the present writ petition it is firstly contended that the S.D.M. had no jurisdiction to allow the revision u/s 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Section 85 of the Act provides that-- If there has been a miscarriage of justice or if there is an apprehension of miscarriage of Justice in any case, suit or proceeding the S.D.M. in respect of any case and the munsif in respect of any suit and the S.D.O. in respect of any proceeding under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, may on the application of any party or on his own motion at any time in a pending case, suit or proceeding, as the case may be and within sixty days from the date of the decree or order call for the record of the case, suit or proceeding, as the case may be from the Panchayati Adalat.... 4. In the present case, admittedly the application in revision was filed about two years after the order was passed by the Panchayati Adalat. The revision, was therefore clearly beyond sixty days and no extension could be granted under any of the rules or provisions of thee Act. There is no power given to the S.D.M. u/s 85 to entertain a revision filed beyond sixty days from the date of the order. 5. In the present case, the S.D.M. had dismissed the revision, at the first instance, not only on the ground of default but also on the ground that it was barred by limitation and as such, it was not open to him to ignore the contention raised by the Petitioner that the revision was beyond time and could not be entertained. 6. 6. The next contention of the applicant is that Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act authorises the S.D.M. to set aside the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat in a proceeding. Proceeding has been defined in Section 2, Sub-section (m) of the Act as meaning a proceeding specified in Section 70. And order passed by the Adalat u/s 82 of the Act, therefore, is not a proceeding, as defined in the Act and the S.D.M. had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision against an order passed by the Panchayati Adalat. If the party, aggrieved by the order, desired to challenge the said order on the ground that fraud was committed by the applicant or by the panches and, as such, the order itself was a nullity the remedy of the opposite-party was to file a suit in the court for a declaration that the order was illegal as fraud had been practised by the party to the proceeding, but in a summary proceeding u/s 85 it is not open to the S.D.M. to determine the question of fact and interfere with an order passed by the Pnnchayati Adalat. The order, therefore, passed by the S.D.M. is wholly without jurisdiction and should be set aside. 7. It was contended by Mr. Chaudhari, who appears for the opposite party, that even if the order passed by the S.D.M. is without jurisdiction, it does not affect the rights of the parties and, as such, this Court should not interfere with such an order in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been held by this Court in a number of cases that proceedings for correction of revenue records do not affect the rights of the parties. Any order passed by the Pauchayati Adalat in respect of such proceedings cannot be challenged by means of a writ petition. The position, however, in the present case is entirely different. The order, which was passed by the Panchayati Adalat, was not an order merely granting an application for correction of the revenue papers but it was an order passed u/s 82 on an alleged compromise arrived at between the parties, declaring the applicant to be the hereditary tenant and when that order was set aside by the S.D.M. such an order, if without jurisdiction, can be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is, therefore, no force in this preliminary objection raised by the opposite-party. 8. Lastly, it was contended by the opposite-party that, in any case, this Court should interfere with the order of the Panchayati Adalat independently of the application made by the Petitioner, as the order was wholly without jurisdiction. The contention raised, in effect, is that the opposite-party, in defence, should be allowed to challenge the decision of the Panchayati Adalat on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and that the panches were parties to the conspiracy and forgery had been committed by the applicant and the panches. The question, whether the order was obtained by fraud or as a result of conspiracy, is a question the decision of which depends upon evidence. The panches and the applicant could not be convicted in summary proceedings without giving them an opportunity to meet these allegations. If an independent writ petition had been filed by the opposite-party praying for the quashing of the order of the Panchayati Adalat on the ground mentioned above, obviously this Court would have rejected it and directed the opposite-parties to get this matter decided by means of a regular suit. They can, therefore, not be allowed to be in a better position by taking this point in defence. 9. It was then contended that the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Adalat could not correct the papers itself. Reliance has been placed on Section 33 of the Land Revenue Act which reads as follows: The Collector shall maintain the records-of-rights and for that purpose shall annually, or at such longer intervals as the Provincial Government may prescribe, cause to be prepared an amended set of the registers enumerated in Section 32. The Collector shall cause to be recorded in the annual registers all changes that may take place and any transaction that may effect any of the rights or interests recorded and shall therein correct any errors proved to have been made in the record-of-rights or in any annual register previously prepared. 10. Section 70 of the Panchayat Raj Act provides that-- All disputed proceedings under Sections 33, 34, 35, 39, 40 and 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act shall be transferred by the Tahsildar to the Panchayati Adalat, if any, having jurisdiction. 11. 10. Section 70 of the Panchayat Raj Act provides that-- All disputed proceedings under Sections 33, 34, 35, 39, 40 and 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act shall be transferred by the Tahsildar to the Panchayati Adalat, if any, having jurisdiction. 11. There is a conflict between Sections 33 and 70 inasmuch as Section 33 expressly provides that the correction in the revenue records could only be made by the Collector. The Panchayati Adalat was given power to deal with the proceedings u/s 33 but it had no power to order correction. The Land Revenue Act, has b en amended by the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Section 35 of the Land Revenue Act reads as follows: The Tahsildar, on receiving such report, or upon the facts coming otherwise to his knowledge, shall make such inquiry as appears necessary and in undisputed cases, if the succession or transfer appears to have taken place, shall record the same in the annual registers; if the succession or transfer is disputed the Tahsildar shall refer the case to the Collector, who shall dispose it of after deciding the dispute in accordance with the provisions of Section 40. 12. On the basis of these amendments in the Land Revenue Act it is argued by the opposite-party that the Panchayati Adalat has no jurisdiction to order correction of papers except in cases where correction is sought to be made on the ground of transfer or succession. It is not necessary to go into that question and determine whether the Panchayati Adalat, in view of the amendment of the Land Revenue Act, has jurisdiction to, order corrections or not. In the present case the Adalat had not exercised his power u/s 70 of the Act and had not ordered the correction of the paper. It had only recorded the compromise arrived at between the parties u/s 82, P.R. Act, Section 82 of the Act provides that-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for a Panchayati Adalat to decide any civil or revenue dispute arising in its local area and not pending in any court in accordance with any settlement, compromise or oath agreed upon by the parties and likewise decide a case if compoundable. 13. 13. In the present case there was a revenue dispute between the Petitioner and the opposite-party inasmuch as both of them claimed to be the hereditary tenant of the disputed plot. Under the alleged compromise parties are agreed that, the Petitioner should be regarded as the hereditary tenant of the plot. There was no case pending in any court between the parties in respect of the said plot. Under those circumstances the Panchayati Adalat could decide the dispute in accordance with the settlement arrived at and what the adalat did in the present case was to decide the controversy on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. It only declared the applicant to be the hereditary tenant as a consequence of which, he directed the patwari to make the necessary corrections. The operative part of the order incorporates the settlement and declares the applicant to be hereditary tenant of the plot. It cannot be said that any of the amendments in the Land Revenue Act, made by the Zamindari Abolition Act have affected the right of the Panchayati Adalat to give effect to any settlement in respect of the dispute between the parties u/s 82. There is, therefore, no force in this contention of the opposite-party either. The Adalat itself and much less the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in revision had jurisdiction to investigate into the validity of the settlement and, in any case, the question whether the Adalat itself was a party to the conspiracy could not be determined by the S.D.M. u/s 85 of the Act. 14. I, therefore, allow this petition with costs and quash the order of the S.D.M. dated the 23rd October, 1954.