This revision has been preferred against the judgment of the Commissioner Ajmer dated 24.10.60 under sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the opposite party that the matter being related to allotment of land, it was a non-judicial matter, the revision whereof under sec. 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act could lie only to the Government. It is not only a question of allotment of land that is involved in this case but also that of the right and title of the applicant over the land allotted. Vide sec. 23(2) of the Act the expression "judicial matter means a proceeding in which a revenue court or officer has to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto and the proceedings and orders as well as appeals, revisions and references in the cases specified in the first schedule of the Act shall be deemed to be judicial matters for the purposes of this Act". Vide first Schedule items 6 and 12, as the applicant claims his right over the land (allotted Khasra No. 2328) and the same has not been not only decided but also completely ignored by all the revenue officers below, this case would be treated to be covering a. "judicial matter". This revision, therefore, is not incompetent. It has been rightly presented to the Board under sec. 84 of the Act, and we have to examine if the jurisdiction has been rightly exercised and there has not been committed any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise thereof. The learned Commissioner, Ajmer, has, after waiting for the file of the Tehsildar for a period of about 13 months, all of a sudden directed that when the file of the Tehsil Niwai was not available the parties should produce their documentary evidence, and on the next date passed final orders in the appeal before him on such evidence as was produced by the opposite party. This is being mentioned here because this was a strange procedure adopted by him. He was to decide a second appeal and had been waiting for the receipt of the file of the Tehsildar, so to say the trial court. This is being mentioned here because this was a strange procedure adopted by him. He was to decide a second appeal and had been waiting for the receipt of the file of the Tehsildar, so to say the trial court. If the file was reported as not being traceable he should have either ordered the re-construction of the file in accordance with law, if he failed to get the file of the officer or decided the case, if he could do so, without it. There was no law under which he could have asked the parties, as a result, to produce such documentary evidence as they liked to produce, and that because of the non-availability of the original file. At the utmost, he could have directed under sec. 80(3) of the Act a further investigation or taken additional evidence or directed the taking of such an evidence. In this respect also he should have specifically set cut the points on which he directed an investigation or wanted to have the additional evidence taken. His order dated 29.8.60 by which he ordered"......... vkSj cdwyk Qjhdsu dks fgnk;r dh xbZ fd vius vius gdwd dh ckcr tks Hkh izek.ki= isk dj lds] isk djs** could not be taken to convey that he was directing the taking of an additional evidence. It could at the most be taken to mean that he was re-taking the evidence in the case. This could not be restricted to only documentary evidence. He, if he wanted re-investigation of the whole matter because of the loss of the original file, should have directed the parties to produce all evidence they liked on the points they were at issue. For the purpose, he should have also settled the points on which they had joint issues. As he did neither, and on the other hand let the opposite party produce Khatoni Jamabandi for the period Svt. 2011 to 2030 and two applications submitted by him, and acted on this evidence without caring to find out as to what was the record of the disputed land in the Svt. year 2015, in which this land had been allotted to the opposite party, he certainly committed not only material irregularity but also a grave illegality inasmuch as he took into consideration evidence which was legally speaking no evidence on the point to be decided by him. year 2015, in which this land had been allotted to the opposite party, he certainly committed not only material irregularity but also a grave illegality inasmuch as he took into consideration evidence which was legally speaking no evidence on the point to be decided by him. It may also be observed that the original file of the Tehsil has been traced since, and has been found to be lying along with the file of the first appellate court (Collector Tonk). A perusal of this file would go to show that the opposite party made an application for being allotted the disputed khasra No. 2328 on 10.3.1958. No report was taken from the Patwari about the existing entries in the revenue records over this khasra number. The only report made by the Patwari on the file is that the opposite party had only 8 bighas and 12 biswas of land with him and that as it was not sufficient, he wanted the khasra No. 2328 measuring 6/4 bighas also, which should be given to him. It is only on this report of the Patwari (which certainly does not disclose the existing entry of, or possession over the disputed land) that the Land Allotment Committee made an allotment of this khasra number to the opposite party. The applicant finally aggrieved from this order went in appeal to the learned Collector Tonk. In that appeal it was also a point urged on behalf of the applicant that this khasra No. 2323 was being cultivated by him for the last three years. It may be that he might have laid more emphasis at the time of hearing of the appeal only on the fact that the opposite party was not the resident of the village but resided at Delhi. But still it is very clearly stated in the judgment of the learned Collector that this point of the cultivatory possession of the applicant for the last three years was also urged by him. The learned Collector has stated that no arguments were advanced in this connection nor any evidence was produced in support thereof. In the first place it seems unimaginable that it might have been so. The learned Collector has stated that no arguments were advanced in this connection nor any evidence was produced in support thereof. In the first place it seems unimaginable that it might have been so. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it was so, it was certainly the duty of the learned Collector to find out from the village records whether the claim of cultivatory possession made by the applicant was supported therefrom or not. He could not have simply ignored this point only with the observation that neither it was argued nor any evidence was produced in support of it. The very fact that the learned Collector expected the evidence to be adduced goes to show that it must have been urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal also. As for the evidence of his cultivatory possession, the learned Collector should have first assured from the village revenue records that the name of the applicant was not entered therein. We have been shown a copy of the Khasra-girdawari for the relevant period by the learned counsel for the applicant today. It very clearly contains the name of the applicant as cultivating this disputed khasra number. The question of asking the applicant to adduce evidence should have arisen only when there was found to be no entry in village revenue records in his favour. The learned Collector also therefore, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and his judgment too cannot be up-held. It may be farther observed that when this allotment was being made the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957, had come into force. Under these rules made under the Act in exercise of powers of the Government under sec. 261(2) of the Act, ordinarily only the land the list whereof had been prepared under Rule 5 and the exclusions and reservations had been made therefrom under Rule 6, could be taken to be available for allotment. Such land was necessarily to be "unoccupied" land. No land which was claimed to be under occupation could be allotted under these rules. 261(2) of the Act, ordinarily only the land the list whereof had been prepared under Rule 5 and the exclusions and reservations had been made therefrom under Rule 6, could be taken to be available for allotment. Such land was necessarily to be "unoccupied" land. No land which was claimed to be under occupation could be allotted under these rules. When the applicant had been claiming an occupation over land under dispute, his objection must have been decided before-hand and then alone the allotment made by the Tehsildar confirmed by the learned Collector, in this manner also the learned Collector has exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the appeal before him. Now about the order of the learned Tehsildar on which the learned Collector and learned Commissioner had based their orders in appeal. The learned Tehsildar could similarly get allotted only the land covered by Rule 5 read with Rule 6 of the above Rules. He could not certainly make an order of allotment about any khasra number applied for by anybody unless he made sure that the land was unoccupied and the list had been prepared in Form I appended to these Rules. The very first column of that Form demanded that the year in which the land was last cultivated together with the name of the cultivator and rate of rent paid must be stated. Such a list in this Form I was required to be prepared by the Tehsildar by 30th September in each year, pillage-wise. There is nothing on record to show that the khasra No 2328 about which this dispute is, formed part at all of a such list. The Rules are statutory Rules and the compliance of the provision thereof is mandatory. No allotment without the full cosmpli-ance thereof could be called to be regular. This would be illegal when somebody claim the cultivatory possession over the land proposed to be allotted and the objection is not at all investigated and not even verified from the village revenue records. The learned Tehsildar too, therefore, not only failed to exercise his jurisdiction in a lawful manner but also exceeded the same and committed an irregularity and illegality in the exercise thereof. The learned Tehsildar too, therefore, not only failed to exercise his jurisdiction in a lawful manner but also exceeded the same and committed an irregularity and illegality in the exercise thereof. This revision, therefore., though arising out of allotment proceedings, does lie to the Board because of its involving the land over which the applicant claims a cultivatory possession for some years and because of the same having not only not been decided and rejected but also completely ignored by all the learned revenue officers below. As there has been as discussed above not only an excess or failure of jurisdiction but also been committed an irregularity and illegality in the manner of the exercising thereof, we cannot but accept this revision, set aside the order of the three learned revenue officers below and remand the case to the learned Tehsildar for proceeding afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above and sifter disposing of the objections raided by the applicant; and we order accordingly.