This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, dated 22.6.1966, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar, dated 11.6.62. By this order, the learned Sub Divisional Officer, had confirmed the temporary injunction issued against the defendant - petitioner earlier on 19.7.61 in respect of the suit lands, on the ground the plaintiffs - respondents were recorded as the khatedars in the revenue records, and, further, that the petitioner- defendant had failed to establish that he was the cultivating tenant of the same. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have ignored the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. He has drawn my attention to the khasra girdawari for the years 2011 and 2014 which carries the names of Rura and Kajya petitioner, sons of Mangla in columns 16 and 40 as the cultivating tenants. He has also produced khasra Girdawari as for the St. years 2012 and 2013 which carry the name of Rura s/o Mangla in columns 16 and 24. The Girdawari for the St. years 2015 and 2016 has also been produced. It carries the names of Nathu, Prabhu, Kishna and Kajya for the St. year 2015 and Kajya, Prabhu and Mangla for the St. year 2017. For the year 2014, it carries the entry "Tanaza." On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has drawn my attention to another girdawari on record for the St. year 2015 which carries the name of Nathu Kumhar. His contention is that the name of Kajya has been entered in the girdawaris produced by the defendant petitioner by the patwari in collusion with Kajya and, therefore, those entries are not reliable. In support of this contention, he has pointedly referred to the girdawari for the St. year 2015 which carries the name of Nathu only. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned orders that the lower courts have not gone into these details. If the record has been tampered with by the patwari in collusion with Kajya, it is a matter of serious concern and calls for a further enquiry and disciplinary proceedings if necessary against the patwari. 1 he maintenance of accurate records is the primary duty of the S.D.O. and the Collector. If the record has been tampered with by the patwari in collusion with Kajya, it is a matter of serious concern and calls for a further enquiry and disciplinary proceedings if necessary against the patwari. 1 he maintenance of accurate records is the primary duty of the S.D.O. and the Collector. At the field level the record is maintained by the patwari and any deflection by the field staff which brings the veracity of the field record into doubt cannot be lightly ignored and demands strict disciplinary action. I have no doubt that the Sub Divisional Officer will make necessary enquiries in this matter and take suitable action. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Kajya and Rura are brothers and the entires for the St. years 2012 and 2013 in favour of Rura should be construed to subsist in favour of Kajya too. At any rate,in view of the fact that the lower courts appear to have ignored these entries, I consider it to be a fit case in which to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue. I, therefore, accept this revision petition and remand the case to the court of the Sub Divisional Officer for further enquiry into the matter. Till then, however, the temporary injuction issued by the trial court will stand. It is, further, ordered that the party in possession of the suit lands will not cause any damage to the suit lands by cutting trees or doing any other act injurious to the property.