This revision petition is directed against the order passed in appeal by the Additional Collector, Udaipur dated the 8th June, 1962. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents husband Dalla, now expired, filed an application under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act claiming himself to be a recorded sub-tenant of the petitioner Kishenlal for grant of Khatedari rights in his favour. The Tehsildar granted the respondents application against which the petitioner unsuccessfully appealed before the Additional Collector, Udaipur. A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent that this was essentially a case of a mutation proceedings and the order was passed by the Tehsildar under sec. 133 read with sec. 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Against such order a second appeal lay before the Revenue Appellate Authority and this revision before the Board was premature and incompetent. The counsel urged that under sec. 133 of the Land Revenue Act, this khatedari right was acquired by the respondent and he accordingly applied for mutation in the record of rights. It was essentially therefore a mutation matter and no revision lay against this order as remedy by way of second appeal was available to the aggrieved party. In support he cited I.L.R. 1954 page 106. The counsel for the petitioner replied by saying that the order passed by the Tehsildar and upheld by the Collector was not an order concerning mutation proceedings as no form relating to the mutation was ever prepared and the procedure laid down for attestation of the mutation proceedings in the Land Record Mannual was never followed in as much as the entry proposed to be made was not attested in an open assembly. It was, therefore not an order under sec. 133 read with sec. 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, but it was an order merely under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which order was appealable if passed by the Tehsildar before the Additional Collector and a revision lay to this Board. I have considered the arguments advanced on this preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent and examined the record. The question before me is whether this order relates to a mutation proceeding under sec. 133 read with sec. 135 of the Land Revenue Act or it is an order passed by the Tehsildar under sec. 19 of the Act. The question before me is whether this order relates to a mutation proceeding under sec. 133 read with sec. 135 of the Land Revenue Act or it is an order passed by the Tehsildar under sec. 19 of the Act. It is clear from the impugned orders before me that this was essentially an order under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and not a mutation order u/sec. 133 or sec. 135 of the Land Revenue Act. This order was passed by the Tehsildar in exercise of the power to confer khetedari rights on a recorded sub-tenant. It is different that ultimately after the order has been passed declaring that the respondent has acquired khatedari rights that a mutation would be called for in the record of rights, but before such a mutation is made a procedure has to be gone through by a Tehsildar in order to determine whether a person has acquired khatedari right under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or not. In my opinion this was an order under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and therefore a revision against the order passed by the Collector in appeal was competent before the Revenue Board. Thus the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent is untenable. The counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions against the impugned orders passed by the subordinate courts. Firstly, that the original order passed by the Tehsildar was clearly illegal on the ground that it was passed by the Tehsildar without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and was thus against the principle of natural justice. Secondly in passing the impugned order the Tehsildar did not enquire into the matter whether the Khatedari rights proposed to be granted to the respondent did not infringe the provisions contained in sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act relating to those holdings of the land in which no khatedari right could accrue to a person. Further the order did not take into consideration the fact whether the grant of such Khatedari right would infringe the minimum area prescribed by the State Government under which a tenant may hold land not exceeding the minimum area prescribed by the State Government in cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 180 or exceed the maximum area from which such person is liable to ejectment under cl. (d) of the aforesaid sub-section. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 180 or exceed the maximum area from which such person is liable to ejectment under cl. (d) of the aforesaid sub-section. The counsel further urged that the petitioner was an old and disabled person and not in fit state of cultivating his land and if an opportunity was given to him he would prove that under sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act no khatedari right could have accrued against his holding. The only reply given by the counsel for the respondent was that under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act no enquiry is contemplated. It is merely a summary procedure under which the Tehsildar has to grant khatedari rights to a recorded subtenant and mutate his name in the record of rights. He, therefore urged that the question of giving opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case was not at all necessary. Further there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was a person who came into the category of those persons enumerated in sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against whom no khatedari rights accrue. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and examined sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The order passed by the Tehsildar is admittedly an order under sec. 19 of the Act in which by operation of law a recorded subtenant in the record of rights at the time of the commencement of the Act acquired the rights of a khatedar tenant on the part of the land as held by him. The section is completely silent as far as the procedure to be followed with regard to conferment of khatedari rights under sec. 19. A view has consistently been taken as pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that in such cases the conferment of khatedari right upon a tenant is automatic and calls for no enquiry. The question before me is whether an enquiry in such cases under sec. 19 sub-sec. 1 is necessary or not. The close examination of the section would show that a certain kind of enquiry by the authority conferring khatedari right is contemplated. It is not clear as to who would conduct this enquiry. Evidently, the Tehsildar has to conduct this enquiry as in the third Schedule relating to applications sec. 19 sub-sec. 1 is no where mentioned, although sub-sec. The close examination of the section would show that a certain kind of enquiry by the authority conferring khatedari right is contemplated. It is not clear as to who would conduct this enquiry. Evidently, the Tehsildar has to conduct this enquiry as in the third Schedule relating to applications sec. 19 sub-sec. 1 is no where mentioned, although sub-sec. 2 has been mentioned where an application relating to grant of khatedari right has to be filed before the Assistant Collector. At the time of granting khatedari rights by operation of law under sec. 19 the Tehsildar has to ascertain and satisfy the provision of the law before he could grant khatedari rights. These provisions of law have been rightly stated by the counsel for the petitioner in his argument before me. He has stated that before a khatedari right could accrue to a person, under sec. 19 he must show that he was a recorded sub-tenant in the record of rights at the commencement of this Act. Further it has to be seen whether as laid down in proviso to sec. 19 sub-sec. 1 that the land on which a person acquir-ed khatedari right is not held by those persons who are enumerated in sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and other matters mentioned in the proviso. These provisions contained in sec. 19 of the Act clearly show that an enquiry is contemplated before the Officer is satisfied that a khatedari right could be granted and a person is recorded as a sub-tenant. An enquiry would necessarily mean a notice to the existing holder of the land and also to the person who acquired khatedari right to disclose whether he holds any other land to which if this land over which he acquires khatedari rights is added would offend the minimum area and maximum prescribed under sec. 180 of Act. It is only after this enquiry is made that a proper order could be passed under sec. 19 by an Officer concerned. In the absence of this enquiry I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Tehsildar was bad in law and offends against the principle of natural justice as admittedly no opportunity was given to the petitioner of being heard before such order is passed. 19 by an Officer concerned. In the absence of this enquiry I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Tehsildar was bad in law and offends against the principle of natural justice as admittedly no opportunity was given to the petitioner of being heard before such order is passed. The scope of enquiry no-doubt, it appears is summary and speedy, but it does not mean that all these provisions of law are to be over-looked at the time of passing an order under sec, 19 in a rush manner in granting khatedari rights to a merely recorded sub-tenant. There is thus great force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. The order passed by the Tehsildar and confirmed in appeal by the Additional Collector, Udaipur to my mind is clearly illegal in view of the observations made above. I, therefore, accept the revision petition of the petitioner, set aside the order of the Additional Collector, Udaipur as well as of the Tehsildar concerned and remand this case for further enquiry and fresh orders after giving the petitioner the opportunity of being heard in the light of my observations made above.