This is a revision preferred against the appellate order of the Collector, Jhalawar, dated 23rd January, 1962. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant Sri Nathu made an application for the Khatedari right under section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This was allowed by the Tehsildar, Gangadhar, vide his order dated 5th October, 1961. The appeal was preferred to the Collector, Jhalawar. The learned Collector came to the conclusion that the Tehsildar had not jurisdiction to try the case. He, however, refused to remand the case with this observation nor did he return the appeal to the appellant to be presented to the proper court. On the other hand, he accepted the appeal setting aside the order of the Tehsildar and directed that the entry shall continue to remain as usual in favour of the respondent Sri Sewa. It would be advisable to reproduce the observation of the learned Collector ad verbatim : ns[kk tkrk gS fd Jh ukFkw dk vkjkth eqrukft;k ij dCtk la- 2012, 2026 o 2017 esa ntZ gS ij rglhynkj dk d;kl gS fd bldk eqrokfrj dCtk jgk gksxkA dkuwu d;kl ij QSlyk ugha dj ldrkA nQk 19 jktLFkku VsusUlh ,DV esa lkQ ntZ gS fd fnukad 5.4.59 dk dCtk gksuk pkfg, vkSj 15 vDVwcj 1955 ls dCtk gksuk pkfg, vkSj budk bUnzkt dkxtkr esa gksuk pkfg, rc rks ekeyk rglhynkj ds gn vf[r;kj esa gksrk gSA ij vxj bUnzktkr u gksrs gq, fdlh kgknr ds fcuk ij QSlyk djuk iM+rk gSa rks ekeyk gn vf[r;kj vflLVsUV dySDVj gks tkrk gS tc eqlfyek gS fd ukFkw dk dCtk eqlfRly ntZ ugha gS vkSj u la- 2015 esa ntZ Fkk tks fd fnukad 5.4.59 ls dksjLiksaM djrk gS rks nwljh kgknr ds fcuk ij QSlyk djuk rglhynkj ds gn vf[r;kj gh ugha FkkA odhy fjLikMSUV us ;g Hkh cgl dh fd vxj bls rglhynkj dk gn vf[r;kj u ekuk tkosa rks eq>s nkok okil dj fn;k tkosA ge bldks ugha eku ldrs rglhynkj ds ;gka tks nkok Fkk og rglhynkj ds QSlys ds lkFk gh [kRe gks x;k vkSj vc vihy ds dksVZ }kjk okil ugha fn;k tk ldrkA Obviously, there has been a misconception of the provisions of section 19 of the Act by the learned Collector. This section has been amended by section 2 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. 7 of 1959 enforced with effect from 5th April, 1959 as well as by section 3 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1961 which came in force from 4th April, 1961. It lays down that every person, who, at the commencement of this Act (i.e. 15.10.1955) (a) was entered in the Annual Registers then current as a sub-tenant of land or (b) was not so entered but was a sub-tenant (other portions being not relevant to the case have not been reproduced here) shall as from the dates of the commencement of these Amendment Acts, referred to as the "appointed date", become subject to other provisions contained in the Chapter in which this section falls, the Khatedar tenant of such part of the land held by him as does not exceed the limits laid down therein or exceeds the limits from which such person is liable to ejectment as laid down therein, subject further of course to the provisions made in the proviso thereto. This means only that the Khatedari rights so accrued to such a person from the "appointed date" and not that they depended on any entry on the "appointed date". The entry in Annual Registers as sub-tenant was required to exist on October 15, 1955, the date on which the Act came in force and not on the "appointed date" In the absence of such an entry in Annual Registers on 15.10.1955 also the proof of the existence of sub-tenancy on this date (15.10.1955) alone was needed, and not the proof of any such entry on the "appointed date". There was no necessity, as such, as pointed out by the learned Collector, that the applicant should have been continued to be entered as subtenant throughout and must have been entered as such on the "appointed date" which he has taken in the present case to be 5th April, 1959. The appointed date" has been fixed only to be taken as a crucial date from which a person entered as sub-tenant on 15th October, 1955, shall be deemed to have acquired Khatedari rights subject to other provisions laid down in this behalf. The appointed date" has been fixed only to be taken as a crucial date from which a person entered as sub-tenant on 15th October, 1955, shall be deemed to have acquired Khatedari rights subject to other provisions laid down in this behalf. This separate date was necessary to be "appointed" as because of the provisions of section 15 of the Act which do not recognise the sub-tenant to have acquired the Khatedari rights from 15.10.1955, the date of the commencement of the Act itself. It is thus on a misconception that the learned Collector has been pleased to hold that the Tehsildar: had got no jurisdiction to try this application. The entry of the applicant as sub-tenant on 15th October, 1955 over the disputed land in the Annual Registers is not being contended nor denied, rather, it has been established, in this case. The learned Tehsildar had, therefore, the authority and jurisdiction to entertain this application and decide it. It was not necessary for vesting jurisdiction in him that there should have been an entry in the Annual Registers in favour of the applicant as a sub-tenant even on the appointed date". As the learned Collector has set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar in favour of the applicant declaring him to have acquired Khatedari rights from 5.4.1959 on the disputed land on the basis of the entry in the Annual Registers only on the ground that the applicant was not entered as such also on 5.4.1059 the order deserves to be set aside. The learned Tehsildar had rightly held that the applicant had acquired Khatedari rights on the sole basis of the entry as sub-tenant subsisting in favour of the applicant on 15.10.1955, the date of the commencement of the Act. That order, therefore, deserves to be restored. The observation of the learned Collector that the application presented to the Tehsildar ended with the decision by the Tehsildar and that it could not be returned by the appellate court even if it was found that the trial Court had acted without jurisdiction and the lis lay not to the Tehsildar but to some other Officer was not correct either. The appellate court or the officer hearing the appeal gets its or his jurisdiction only on the jurisdiction available to the trial court or the trying officer. The appellate court or the officer hearing the appeal gets its or his jurisdiction only on the jurisdiction available to the trial court or the trying officer. A court of appeal or an officer hearing the appeal cannot be expected to have more powers in a particular case coming before it or him in appeal than the trial court itself or the officer conducting the trial. The learned Collector was, therefore, not within his right to accept the appeal and reverse the judgment of the learned Tehsildar only on the point of jurisdiction and at the same time refuse to return the application to be presented to the proper court or officer. In case the application or suit is found to be triable by any officer or court other than that by which it has been tried, the appellate court having come to know of this mistake should not only correct it but should also direct that the application or the plaint as the case may be, be returned to the applicant or the plaintiff to be presented to the proper court. The learned Collector has, therefore, not only acted with grave illegality and material irregularity, but has also exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order that he has done. It warrants an interference by way of revision. In the present case, we have however, found that the application was triable by the learned Tehsildar, Gangdhar, and that he has passed the right judgment holding that the applicant had acquired the Khatedari rights over the disputed land on the basis of the entry in the Annual Register on 15th October, 1955. In result, we therefore, accept this revision, set aside the appellate order of the learned Collector, Jhalawar and restore that of the Tehsildar Gangadhar dated 5th October, 1961. The applicant shall become Khatedar of the disputed land from 5th April, 1959.