This reference has been made by the Collector u/s. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act vide his order dated 6-3-1969. The main contention raised by the Collector in the aforesaid reference is that originally the suit filed u/s. 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act Goma vs. State, was decreed on 4-10 1968 and no appeal was filed against the aforesaid order by the State and the decree was accordingly passed and became final but when the decree was sent to the Tehsildar for execution, he has made a reference to the Collector for setting aside the aforesaid order being repugnant to the provisions of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. I have heard the counsel for the decree-holder non applicant Goma and bis main argument is that for the same property a declaration by way of suit has been obtained by the non-petitioner and the order of the S.D.O. in the suit dated 4-10-1968 has become res judicata and, therefore, the purport of the decree cannot be circumvented by the Tahsildar or the Collector under the pretext of Section 16 by way of a reference. In fact in the original suit, this plea of non-accrual of the khatedari rights in accordance with Section 16 of the Act had no where been raised by the State and now by way of reference, the State cannot circumvent the effect of the decree. Secondly it is argued that Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act pertains to examination of legality or propriety of the orders passed as to the regularity of the proceedings and this Section does not cover decrees passed in suits and hence in accordance with Section 208 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Civil Procedure Code will apply in the present case. The definitions ofdecree and order given in Section 2 of the CPC are very distinct and, therefore, in the present case this decree does not come within the purview of a reference u/s. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In reply no argument has been advanced except that the reference in the present case is by the Collector as he is the Chief Revenue Officer of the District and in his capacity as such he has made a reference with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section 16 in the aforesaid decree. In view of the above arguments, I have examined the record. In view of the above arguments, I have examined the record. In accordance with Section 208 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, CPC has been made applicable and in the definition vide sub-section 2 and 14 of Section 2 of CPC I find that the decree and order have been defined very distinctly. Decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which conclusively determined the right of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy while an order has been defined as the formal expression of any decision which is not a decree. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the order of the S.D.O. dated 4-10.1968 was passed in a suit by way of decree and the aforesaid decretal order has now become final and res judicata as no appeal whatsoever was perferred by the State. Now coming to the second point raised by the Collector that the land in question comes under sub-clause (2), (3) and (4) of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the aforesaid sub-clauses mention the following lands : 16(ii) land used for cultivation or occasional cultivation in the bed of a river or tank; (iii) land covered by water and used for the purpose of growing Singhara or other like produce; (iv) land under shifting or unstable cultivation; An examination of the khasra girdawari shows that the land in question has been assessed to land revenue and right from the year St. 2011. most of the area has been under cultivation. No singhra has been grown nor the land is under any shifting or unstable cultivation. Therefore sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 16 do not apply. Coming to subclause (ii) of Section 16, I find that in view of the khasra girdawari entries, the land is not used for casual or occasional cultivation. In fact constant stable cultivation is there otherwise the Settlement Department would not have assessed the land to regular fixed land revenue. Therefore in view of the reasons recorded above, the reference is fit to be rejected. The result is that the reference is rejected and the Collector is directed to act in accordance with the decretal order. Announced in open court this 17th day of July, 1970.