The petitioners have brought this revision application against the order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur dated the 21st October, 1961 passed in appeal against the order of the Tehsildar, Chaksu in proceedings under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Before the hearing of this revision petition started a preliminary objection was raised by the counsel| for the respondent that this revision petition was not maintainable on the ground that some respondents who were parties in these proceedings before the trial Court were not made parties in the first appellate Court nor in this Court of Revision. The counsel for the petitioner even filed an application and expressed his readiness to make the respondents as party to the proceedings, but in view of the fact that this was a revision petition and only a question of a law has to be decided which does not affect the rights of the parties who have not joined in these proceedings no useful purpose could be served by making such persons party to these proceedings at this juncture. The Court of revision has inherent power to call for the record of the subordinate court to test the legality or propriety of the order, care being taken to see that no order passed in favour of a person is to be reversed without giving that person an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the objection of the respondents was over-ruled and this revision petition has been heard. The facts are that the petitioners filed an application under sec. 19, sub-sec. 1(a) before the Tehsildar Chaksu that they were the sub-tenants of the land in dispute and they should be given Khatedari rights. The Tehsildar and the first appellate Court rejected the petitioners application, hence this revision. The counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions, firstly, that the Collector misread the residence in holding that Kalu one of the respondent was a minor when in fact he was not. Secondly, both the subordinate Courts failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by failing to apply properly the provisions contained in sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. To these contentions the counsel for the respondents reply was that under sec. Secondly, both the subordinate Courts failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by failing to apply properly the provisions contained in sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. To these contentions the counsel for the respondents reply was that under sec. 19(l)(a) the Acts contemplated a summary enquiry and that only a point required to be disposed of in the application under sec.l9(l)(a) was that when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act commenced on 15.10.1955 it has to be seen whether the petitioners were recorded as sub-tenants in the annual register or not. If they were not so recorded, the remedy of the petitioner lay under sec. 19(l)(b) read with sub-sec. 2 of sec. 19 of Tenancy Act before the Assistant Collector concerned and not before the Tehsildar. For this reason the Tehsildar as well as the Additional Collector, Jaipur rightly rejected the petitioners application and directed them to proceed in a regular manner. In fact at the time of the commencement of the Tenancy Act in Smt. 2012 the entry of the disputed holding in Khasra Girdawari was in favour of the respondents and only one of the petitioners that in Mahadevs name was mentioned without showing capacity in which he held the land. We have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and examined the record. There is much force in the reply given by the counsel for the respondent that enquiry under sec. 19(1)(b) of the Tenancy Act is a summary enquiry and Khatedari rights are only to be given to those sub-tenants who were so recorded in the annual register. For case of reference sec. 19 is reproduced as under— "19. Conferment of rights on certain tenants of Khudkasht and sub-tenants— (1) Every person who, at the commencement of this Act — (a) was entered in the annual registers then current as a tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant of land other than grove land, or.........shall, as from the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment Act), 1959, hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the appointed date, become subject to the other provisions contained in this Chapter, a Khatedar tenant of such part of the land held by him............" The relevant provision of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act clearly means that when the amended Act of 1959 was passed on 5.4.1959 only those sub-tenants of land, who were entered in the annual registers, then current, at the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are to acquire Khatedari rights. The perusal of the record would show that in the first instance the petitioners did not produce the annual register to show that they were recorded as sub-tenants on the crucial date of 15th October, 1955 when the Tenancy Act commenced equivalent to Smt. 2012. Instead the petitioners have produced only Gasht Girdawari record and the counsel for the respondents rightly pointed out that even in the relevant girdawari record of Smt. year 2012 no entry existed in favour of Hukma, the first petitioner as well as in favour of Kesra s/o Hukma, the second petitioner. Only an entry existed in favour of Mahadeo which to does not show his capacity in which he held or cultivated the land. In the face of such doubtful entries there was no possibility of the applicant succeeding in acquiring Khatedari rights under sec. 19 sub-sec. (l)(a) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. No annual register i.e. the record of rights of Jamaban-dis has been produced by the petitioner to support his application. A gasht girdawari is certainly not an annual register and its entries cannot help and satisfy the provisions of sec. 19 of the Tenancy Act. The legislature while drafting sec. 19 of the Act, in the Amendment Act of 1959 were careful to see, that no fraud could be practiced in obtaining Khatedari rights by dating back recognised entry in the record of rights to 15th October, 1955 and making the conferment of such rights easy and speedier, simply on the basis of reading the record and without making a detailed enquiry. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that provisions of sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were mis-applied and the evidence that Kalu was a minor was mis-read are of no substance here, because these are all the matters of detailed enquiry which was never contemplated in sec. 19 of the Tenancy Act. It was only in those cases in sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were mis-applied and the evidence that Kalu was a minor was mis-read are of no substance here, because these are all the matters of detailed enquiry which was never contemplated in sec. 19 of the Tenancy Act. It was only in those cases in sec. 19(1)(b) where the entry did not exist, but yet a person, held the land as sub-tenant than on proof of this fact of sub-tenancy before the Assistant Collector he could be conferred his Khatedari rights. In this case no entry existed in favour of the petitioner and his remedy actually lay under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 19 of the Tenancy Act. It was not necessary for the Tehsildar as stated by the counsel for the petitioner to have forwarded this application to the Assistant Collector. When this application was made to him and he was seized of this case, he was at liberty to dispose it of in accordance with the provisions of law, which he did. Thus there is no force in these contentions of the counsel for the petitioner. The revision petition is accordingly rejected.