ORDER R.C. Roy Poddar, President This is an application for revision against the order of the Naib-Tahsildar, Saraipali, in Revenue Case No. 6-A/6 of 1963-64 under which he had ordered the correction of an entry in the mutation register which was previously certified by the Revenue Inspector. The facts of the case are that an entry was made in the mutation register to the effect that the applicant had acquired right in the lands in question which he had purchased from one Ganeshram, the predecessor-in-interest of the non-applicants and the acknowledged Bhumiswami of the lands, through a registered sale deed dated 20-12-1960. This entry appears to have been certified by the Revenue Inspector on 20-10-1963 in compliance with an order of the Additional Collector, Raipur, dated 3-10-1963. While checking the entries in the mutation register the Naib-Tahsildar found that the Revenue Inspector had wrongly certified this particular entry which was a disputed one and, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Revenue Inspector. The Naib-Tahsildar thereupon assumed powers u/s 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and after due enquiry set aside the certification made by the Revenue Inspector and directed that "the objection of the non-applicants be recorded in the register of disputed cases and the respective entries in that register and those in the Record-of-Rights be corrected accordingly to bring the same in position prior to certificate made on 20-10-1963 until further order. It is against this order of the Naib-Tahsildar that the present application for revision had been filed. The grounds urged against the impugned order are: (a) that the Revenue Inspector's order as Certifying Officer being an appealable order under the Code could not be set aside by the Naib-Tahsildar who had no appellate powers; and (ai) that the Naib-Tahsildar had acted illegally in invoking inherent powers u/s 32 of the Code in a case where an alternative remedy was available. It is not correct to say that the order of certification passed by the Revenue Inspector on 20-10-1963 was an appealable order. The Revenue Inspector is not a Revenue Officer according to Section 11 of the Code and the certification made by him is also not an order as defined in Section 56. There could not therefore, be either an appeal or a revision against the order of the Revenue Inspector under Chapter V of the Code. The Revenue Inspector is not a Revenue Officer according to Section 11 of the Code and the certification made by him is also not an order as defined in Section 56. There could not therefore, be either an appeal or a revision against the order of the Revenue Inspector under Chapter V of the Code. I agree with the Learned Counsel, however, that the Naib-Tahsildar could not assume power u/s 32 of the Code to set aside an order of certification made by the Revenue Inspector. It was not necessary either. The Naib-Tahsildar could do it in exercise of the power vested in him u/s 109/110 of the Code. Thus the only error that I find in the impugned order is the invocation of the inherent powers of a Court u/s 32 for setting aside the order of the Revenue Inspector. Rule 15 of the rules framed u/s 258 read with Sections 108, 109 and 110 of the Code authorises the Revenue Inspector to certify entries in the mutation register if there is no dispute, and the Naib-Tahsildar to check a certain percentage of the entries certified by the Revenue Inspector. I cannot agree with the Learned Counsel for the applicant that this checking is purely an administrative action and while the Naib-Tahsildar can, in the event of any certification made by the Revenue Inspector being found to be wrong or unauthorized, take administrative action against the Revenue Inspector concerned, he cannot set aside the order of certification passed by the Revenue Inspector. This does not seem to me to be a reasonable view. The purpose of checking can only be to make sure that the entries in the mutation register certified by the Revenue Inspector are correct and worthy of being transferred to the Record-of-Rights-register in accordance with Rule 23. If the entries are not corrected even when they are found to be incorrect on checking the result would obviously be an incorrect and unreliable Record-of-Rights which would be against the public interest. The correct view of the law is that when the Naib-Tahsildar finds on checking that any certification made by Revenue Inspector is wrong or unauthorized, he should institute an enquiry and, after hearing the parties concerned, take action for the correction of the particular entry in accordance with Rules 16-22 of the Rules. The correct view of the law is that when the Naib-Tahsildar finds on checking that any certification made by Revenue Inspector is wrong or unauthorized, he should institute an enquiry and, after hearing the parties concerned, take action for the correction of the particular entry in accordance with Rules 16-22 of the Rules. It goes without saying that when the Revenue Inspector's certification is found to be unauthorized because of the entry being a disputed one, the Naib-Tahsildar is to proceed in the same way as he would in the case of a disputed entry. In this case on going through the papers on record I find that on 6-12-1961 a note was made in the mutation register that non-applicant No. 2 had disputed the sale and, therefore, the entry was left uncertified. Thereafter on 20-10-1963 another note was made to the effect that the entry is certified in accordance with the order of the Additional Collector, Raipur, dated 3-10-1963. It is needless to mention that when an entry in the mutation register is disputed the Revenue Inspector has no authority to certify it even in compliance with the order of a higher Revenue Officer. As soon as an entry is disputed it goes out of the jurisdiction of the Revenue Inspector and it has to be certified by the Naib-Tahsildar or the Tahsildar after deciding the dispute. The manner in which the dispute is to be decided has been laid down in Rules 16 to 22 of the Rules. Under the impugned order the Naib-Tahsildar has not finally decided the dispute yet. He has made only an interim order for recording the dispute in the register of disputed cases and for restoring the position obtaining prior to the certification made by the Revenue Inspector on 20-10 1963. In these circumstances I do not find anything wrong or improper in the order of the Naib-Tahsildar. The Naib-Tahsildar will now decide the dispute in accordance with the rules and the applicant will have ample opportunity to make whatever representation he wants to make. He will also have right of appeal/revision after the case is finally decided, if of course the final decision goes against him. The revision, therefore, fails and the application for revision is rejected. Final Result : Dismissed