The appellants have filed the second appeal against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated the 11th June, 1963. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Sub-Divisional Officer Bayana submit ted proposals for creation of a pasture land in village Purbai Kheda, Tehsil Bayana District Bharatpur and invited objections. For the creation of 490 Bighas and 6 biswas of land consisting of 32 khasra numbers of field in the village. During the investigation it was discovered that the land in the cultivatory possession of Churaman, Nathi, Harat and Jhanda the present respondents consisting of 81 bighas and 19 biswas was released from the scheme of the pasture land by the Tehsildar or 28th December, 1958. The present appellants filed an appeal against this order before the Revenue Appellate Authority claiming themselves to be aggrieved by the release of the aforesaid land from the scheme of the pasture land. The Revenue Appellate Authority after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the appellants could not be considered as aggrieved and they were neither allottees of the land released no they filed any objection on behalf of the entire village. It is against this order of rejection of the first appeal that the appellants have come before us in the second appeal. The only contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the pasture land once recorded in the settlement record cannot be released by the Collector and in support he cited R.R.D. 1961 p. 51. The counsel for the respondent repelled this argument by saying that as the appellants were not aggrieved by any order of the Collector their second appeal was not maintainable. We have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. It is clear that the creation of pasture land in the village Purwai Kheda was still in the investigation stage and no entry in the land record has been made so far by the Land Record Officer of the District. The land was released during the investigation stage as found to be in the cultivation of the respondents. Thus there is no question that the recorded charagan has been released by the Collector by his impugned order and therefore the ruling of this Revenue Board contained i , 1961 R.R.D. p. 51 has no application. The land was released during the investigation stage as found to be in the cultivation of the respondents. Thus there is no question that the recorded charagan has been released by the Collector by his impugned order and therefore the ruling of this Revenue Board contained i , 1961 R.R.D. p. 51 has no application. In fact the above ruling relates to the fact that the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to exclude areas from the recorded Charagan and release them for cultivation to bring them under assessment. It is an admitted fact here that there is no recorded charagan so far in this land. As state i above the enquiry for the creation of a charagan as prescribed by the Rajasthan Tenancy Rules, 1955 in Chapter II was in progress. It is after that that the land has been earmarked for charagan is only to be entered as charagah in village papers and once this entry is made the land cannot be released for cultivation except will the sanction of the Collector. We may observe here that the above ruling given b\ the Board of Revenue has no application to this case as the facts are different. Besides to our mind the learned Member in holding that the Collector was not authorised to release the land from the recorded charagah is against the express provisions of the R. 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government Rules) 1955. This reads as follows :— Sec. 7—The land earmarked in this manner shall be entered as pasture land of charnot in the village papers, and as such land shall not be given to anyone for cultivation or for any other purpose without the sanction of the Collector. Thus the Collector under the rules is absolutely competent to sanction release pasture land for purpose of cultivation and other matters. Thus there is no bar for the Collector to release land if he so desired as the same is provided under the rules referred to above. The contention of the counsel for the appellant therefore, has absolutely no force and this appeal is accordingly rejected.