JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration that the land within the area marked by letters A B C D E F G H I J A/1 and shaded blue on the map, appendix A, to the plaint and also shown on the Ami Commissioner's map dated 23rd Jan., 1966 lay outside the boundary of village Bhumithal as determined in 1866 and lay within the traditional boundaries of village Jakh Dhaulet. The suit was representative in character, the plaintiffs being the residents of village Jakh Dhauletand the defendants being the residents of village Bhumiathal. 2. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but on appeal the lower appellate Court dismissed it, This second appeal was heard by me on an earlier occasion and dismissed by my judgment reported as Faqir Singh v. Bhim Singh, in 1978 All LJ 1035 but on a reference made by me in another case the view of the law taken by me about the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in these matters was not approved by a Division Bench reported as Daulat Singh v. Khushal Singh, 1979 All LJ 1307. An application for review of my earlier judgment was thereupon allowed and the matter has been heard all over again at some length. I may here point out that one of the reasons for the error in my judgment reported in 1978 Mr. Trail's Settlement was specified as 1923 instead of 1823 in the copy of the Book of Local Acts containing the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948 that was placed before me. In fact the correct year of Mr. Trail;s Settlement was 1823, equivalent to Samvat 1880 Vikrami, and that is how the village boundaries demarcated by Mr. Trail's Settlement have come to be known as Sal Assi boundaries in Kumaun and Garhwal. It is obvious that if I had realised that the settlement of 1866, that is Mr. Beckett's Settlement under which village Bhumithal was first demarcated was later than Mr. Trial's settlement, I could not have made the observation that the Settlement of 1966 relied upon by the Courts below was certainly much prior to the Settlement of 1923-1933 referred to in the definition as Mr. Trail's Settlement, which I have made in para.3 of that judgment. 3. According to the definition contained in Cl. Trial's settlement, I could not have made the observation that the Settlement of 1966 relied upon by the Courts below was certainly much prior to the Settlement of 1923-1933 referred to in the definition as Mr. Trail's Settlement, which I have made in para.3 of that judgment. 3. According to the definition contained in Cl. (10) of S. 3, kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948, "Traditional boundary" means the boundary of a village defined at Mr. Trail's Settlement of 1823 (Sambat 1880) or as established in 1839 (Sambat 1896) subject to any subsequent rectification by order of a settlement or Record Officer or by a judicial decision." 4. The defendant's village bhumiathal was carved out of the plaintiff's village Jakh Dhaulat in the year 1866 A.D. at, what has come to be known as, Mr. Beckett's Settlement. According to the Manual of the Land Tenures of the Kumaun Division by V.A. Stowell, Deputy Commissioner Garhwal, 1966, printed by the Superintendent, Printing and Stationery, U.P. 1966, at page 10: "These boundaries enclose much unmeasured forest and grazing land, the property of Government, as well as the cultivated lands which are the actual property of the villagers and on which they pay land revenue. They are the "assisal" or "san assi" boundaries of the village, so called from Mr. Trial's general measurement and fixing of boundaries for the whole province in A.D. 1822 or 1880 Sambat." "These boundaries convey no properietary right of any kind to the villagers over the unmeasured land which they enclose, but they represent the areas in which by custom or user the village has its special grazing grounds and its separate water supply and gets its timber, if there is sufficient forest to supply this last." 5. The immediate cause of action for the suit giving rise to this second appeal was an order Ext. 33 dated 15th April, 1964 of the Assistant Records Officer which was confirmed on appeal by an order dated 16th Feb., 1965 by the Record Officer, Pithoragarh. By these orders the disputed areas were held to form part of the traditional boundaries of the defendants village Bhumiathal. The Plaintiffs claimed that these orders were wrong and against facts and were prejudical to their interest, hence the suit. By these orders the disputed areas were held to form part of the traditional boundaries of the defendants village Bhumiathal. The Plaintiffs claimed that these orders were wrong and against facts and were prejudical to their interest, hence the suit. The Assistant Records Officer considered in some detail with reference to the maps and the revenue records, the traditional boundaries of the plaintiff's village Jakh Dhaulat and the boundaries of the defendants village Bhumiathal as defined in 1866 when that village was carved out as a separate village within the area of the traditional boundaries of the plaintiff's village Jakh Dhaulat. He had before him a map referred to as Ext. I in his order. That map is not before me but a reference to the map which is Appendix 'A' Assistant Records Officer quit intelligible and plain. I quote the relevant portion thereof: "The geographical position of newly created Bhumiyathal is such that its existing position completely obliterates the parent Asst Sala of village Jakh Dhaulat towards north the long line R.A. After creation of Bhumiyathal in 1866 grants were sanctioned in favour of Bhumiathal in Ha 1 numbers 870, 1158,m 1161, 947 and others. The TAURANI RIVER which has been shown as the eastern llimit of Bhumiyathal is actually along A.L. which was accepted before the Bader Amin by the parties. This is further proved by tallying the grants were sanctioned no objection was raised by Jakh Dhaulat. Beyond this river when Bhumiyathal got further extensions and grants in Hal Nos. 1083, 1012 and others shown at Y no objection was raised by Jakh Dahulat and the cultivation of Bhumiyathal got recognition in the settlement then. Further in chacks the Bhumiyathal is in possession since a time before 1900 A.D. and sabiq No. 533, 535, 540, etc. coloured by blue pencil in the Ex. 1 shown by Hal Nos. 1466, 1469, 1464. Their possession was also recognised in 1902 settlement no objection was raised by Jakh. These chacks were marked in 1902 settlement as cultivation of Bhumiyathal. Again Hal Nos. 1196, 1197 near W and other cultivation near w/1 was made after 1902 settlement and Jakh did not object here also. 1 shown by Hal Nos. 1466, 1469, 1464. Their possession was also recognised in 1902 settlement no objection was raised by Jakh. These chacks were marked in 1902 settlement as cultivation of Bhumiyathal. Again Hal Nos. 1196, 1197 near W and other cultivation near w/1 was made after 1902 settlement and Jakh did not object here also. The possession of Bhumiyathal still continued in varg V." The relevant portion of the appellate order runs as follows: "It was argued before me that because of the creation of the Forest panchayat of Jakh Dhaulat in this area, unequivocally the boundary has been fixed of Jakh Dhaulat. However, it is to be noted denied in this Forest Panchayat. I have gone through the Forest Panchayat Officer's order and I find that all along it has been admitted that the disputed land was also being used by the villagers of Bhumiyathal. Therefore, I agree with the finding of the learned A.R.O. that the decision of the F.P.O., which is executive by nature cannot be deemed to have covered the boundary matters. Besides in the record operations it becomes obligatory to fix the boundary of these villages in spite of the fact that this may not have been done earlier. I lay considerable emphasis on the fact that during last 100 years or so, the villagers of Bhumiyathal have been extending their cultivation without being challenged or hampered. The entire area is under the sphere of their influence. As regards the land marks, etc., the learned A.R.O., has mentioned in his order that there was no dispute about the location of the particular spots described in previous records or Assi Sal or Chaknama of Jakh Dhaulat. Any way, I have studied the Badar Amin's report carefully and I find that identification of land marks in the map Ex. 1 has been rightly done. The introduction of various differences pointed out at the time of the argument in the lower Court and before me is merely to confuse the position. Any way, I have studied the Badar Amin's report carefully and I find that identification of land marks in the map Ex. 1 has been rightly done. The introduction of various differences pointed out at the time of the argument in the lower Court and before me is merely to confuse the position. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the disputed land has rightly been shown within the boundary of Bhumiyathal and I dismiss the appeal." As reference to the judgment of the Division Bench in Daulat Singh v. Khushal Singh, 1979 All LJ 1307 para 13, shows that although a civil Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a dispute relating to the traditional boundaries of villagers under the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Land Act, nevertheless, as observed in para 13 of that judgment, the orders of the revenue authorities have to be given due weight and are not to be brushed aside unless there are strong and compelling reasons for doing so. The Record Officer certainly had the jurisdiction to rectify a traditional boundary of a village according to the definition itself. Village Bhumiyathal was carved but in the year 1886 A.D. a period of almost 100 years had elapsed since then when the matter was considered by the Assistant Record Officer. He found that the residents of Bhumiyathal had in course of time come to exercise the rights which the residents of a village normally exercise within its traditional boundaries, to the exclusion of the residents of village Jakh Dhaulat, on account of the geographical position of the two villages and subsequent user ranging over a period of almost 100 years. The sole fact so strongly relied upon by the residents of village Jakh Dhaulat was the fact of creation of a Forest Panchayat, as the Forest Panchayat of the plaintiff's village Jakh Dhaulat in the area of the land in dispute. This discrepancy was easily explained when regard is had to the provisions of the Forest Act, 1927, and the fact that the land in suit was within the traditional boundary of the plaintiff village Jakh Dhaulat as settled in Sambat 1880, and presumably lay outside the boundaries of the defendants village Bhumiyatha. The officers of the forest department did not have any jurisdiction to resettle or redefine the traditional boundaries of a village. The officers of the forest department did not have any jurisdiction to resettle or redefine the traditional boundaries of a village. The forest Panchayat was appointed, under the rules, by a reference to the sal Assi boundaries of a village in the districts of Nainital, Almora, Garhwal and Chamoli of this State. Reading the boundaries of the defendants' village Bhumiyathal, particularly the situation of the Taurani Rauli and the Ghorwara above which the Taurani Rauli is supposed to be situated, and having gone through the map s on the record and the judgments of the two Courts below, as also the order of the Assistant Record Officer, it appears to me that the land is dispute did lie outside the bundary fof the defendants' village. Bhumiyathal and of course lay within the Sal Assi boundaries of the plaintiffs' village Jakh Dhaulat, and, as observed by the Assistant Record Officer, the Forest Panchayat Officer had no alternative but to accept the creation of a Forest Panchayat as that of village Jakh Dhaulat, because the area in dispute lay within the traditional boundaries of Sal Assi of Jakkh Dahulat. The question which directly arose before the Assistant Record Officer and which arises before me is whether in rectifying the traditional boundaries, the Record Officer could alter or redefine the traditional boundaries of village, I think he could in case it was found that in the course of time which has elapsed since the settlement of Sambat 1880, or the subsequent settlements, there has been some change in the traditional boundaries of a village. This change could be brought about by a long course of user and exercise of the traditional and customary rights y the residents of a village in a particular are. The Assistant Record Officer found that the possession of the residents of village Bhumiyathal on the disputed area is old, their control over i t is effective and the geographical nearness, the principle of natural boundaries, the lack of forest land and scope for further extension within the area in dispute were also within the are in dispute were also points in their favour. The residents of Jakh Daulat had on the other hand their own forest near their Abadi. 6. The residents of Jakh Daulat had on the other hand their own forest near their Abadi. 6. The definition of traditional boundaries of a village in the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, itself contemplates a rectification of the boundaries fixed in Sambat 1880 or in Sambat 1896 by the orders of a Settlement Officer or a Record Officer or by a Judicial decision. The rectification of boundaries could take in its scope not only the rectification of a mistake which might have been committed at the time of the original settlement in Sambat 1880, or in Sambat 1896, or even at the last settlement. It could also cimprehend within its scope a rectification in the nature of a resettlement of a boundary necessitated by changes in course of time, such is in the present case. Although the traditional boundaries of the plaintiffs' village Jakh Dhaulat did not show any village of the name of Bhumiythal but in the settlement of 1866 A.D. Mr.Beckett carved out that new village within the traditional boundaries of village Jakh Dhaulat as settled in Sambat 1880. Mr. Beckett must have fixed the boundaries of village Bhumiyathal as he found them in the year 1866. If Mr. Beckett could do so in the year 1866, surely the Record Officer could also do so in the year 1964 when he found that the area of the land in dispute was being used y the residents of village Bhumiyathal in a manner which was possible only if it lay within the traditional boundaries of their village. By consent or acquiescence and exercise of customary rights over the land in dispute, the residents of village Bhumiyathal had succeeded in bringing about a further change in the traditional boundaries of village Jakh Dhaulat, out of which their village was born in the year 1866. Recognising this change, the Record Officer was in my opinion, justified, in rectifying the traditional boundaries, and in the process of doing so in resettling them according to the facts as they existed in the year 1964 when he passed his orders. 7. In the above view of the matter it is necessary to discuss in detail, the detailed argument which was addressed to me by Mr. J.C. Pandey criticising the findings of the lower appellate Court and the reasons thereof. 7. In the above view of the matter it is necessary to discuss in detail, the detailed argument which was addressed to me by Mr. J.C. Pandey criticising the findings of the lower appellate Court and the reasons thereof. The order of the Assistant Record Officer itself shows that the land in dispute did not originally form part of the boundary of village Bhumiyathal when it was created in the year 1866 and the lower appellate Court has in my view misconstrued the descriptions of the boundaries and their situation with reference to the maps. For instance Taurani Rauli above Ghorwara, which was the eastern boundary of village Bhumiyathal when it was created in the year 1866 and the lower appellate Court has in my view misconstrued the descriptions of the boundaries and their situation with reference to the maps. For instance Taurani Rauli above Ghorwara, which was the eastern boundary of village Bhumiyathal, according to the Beckett's settlement of 1866 could not have been anything other than the rivulet between the letters AI and I on the map which is appendix to the plaint, or the rivulet shown starting from letter Kha and proceeding south up to the letter Ja or somewhere near about and the Ghorwara could not be at the place Ga as suggested by the residents of village Bhumiyathal, Taurani Rauli was above the Ghorwara, and the Ghorwara means a house near a field according to the meaning of the term Gharbar. A Gharbara, to be exact, means a house near field according to the meaning of terms used in settlement operations given in the book 'Pawan Himalaya Parichaya' by Ram Roop Singh, Settlement Commissioner U.P. Nainital, Published in 1957. Taurani "Rauli being the eastern boundary of village Bumiyathal as defined by Mr. Beckett's Settlement of 1866, the whole of the land in dispute fell ouside its boundaries and Bhumiyathal but as found by the Assistant Records Officer, customary rights have been exercised by the residents of village Bhumiyathal over the disputed land, so as to necessitate a rectification of the traditional boundary by including the disputed land also within the traditional boundaries of village BAhumiyathal. 8. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances I make no order as to costs in this Court.