JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner seeks to quash the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramganj Mandi (Ex. III), the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority (Ex. II) and the order of the Beard of Revenue (Ex. 1), dated 14-12-1971, 26-2-1975 and i2-9-1975, respectively. 2. In the ceiling proceedings under Chapter 3-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the petitioner submitted his declaration in respect of his holding and submitted an objection that in the Jamabandi for the St. years 2011 to 2014 the land comprised in Khatauni No. 9 was recorded in the name of the petitioner to the extent of one-half share and in the name of Ramnarayan son of Madho and Raninathi wife of Niadho for the remaining one-half share. But in the subsequent settlement record the entire land was exclusively recorded in the name of the petitioner wrongly. It was also stated by the petitioner that in fact Ramnathi was also one of the co-sharers and as such he had only one-fourth share. Affidavits of Prabhu Dayal, Narayan and Ramnathi were also placed on record. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rainganjinandi called for the report of the Tchsildar and considered the objections submitted by the petitioner and thereafter declared that the petitioner is the Khatedar of the entire land of the said khata situated in the village Umarhedi, Tehsil Kanwas. This total holding was concluded to the extent of 96.37 standard acres and it was found that the petitioner's holding exceeds the ceiling limit by 66.37 standard acres. Option notice was given to the petitioner to surrender the excess land. The petitioner went in appeal. However, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the petitioner was also unsuccessful in the Board of Revenue and the revision petition of the petitioner was rejected by the Board of Revenue. 3. It appears that on the basis of the subsequent settlement record, it was held that the petitioner is the Khatcdar of the entire land of various Khasra numbers situated in the village Umarhedi. It has not been considered as to whether that record is correct or not. The Board of Revenue, however, made an observation that there is a presumption of correctness of the revenue records. It has not been considered as to whether that record is correct or not. The Board of Revenue, however, made an observation that there is a presumption of correctness of the revenue records. It was observed that the presumption is a rebuttable one and it has been found that the petitioner has not been able to establish that there were in fact four co-tenants having equal shares in the holding. The learned Board of Revenue also observed that there is a set procedure for changing the record and that Prabhulal or his co-sharers should have objected during the course of the settlement operations or filed a suit there for. The Sub-Divisional Officer could scarcely be expected to change record in ceiling proceedings. In this connection suffice it to say that the whole approach of the learned Member of the Board of Revenue does not appear to be correct. This aspect of the case should have been examined as to how in the Jamabandi for the St years 2011 to 2014 the holding was recorded in the names of the co-sharers having specified shares. If in the earlier Jamabandi it so recorded. then how in the latter Jamabandi the holding was recorded- exclusively in the name of Prabhulal petitioner as a sole Khatadar. It is true that objections could have been filed by the co-sharers or co-sharers at the time of the settlement operations and if a wrong entry has been made, that could be gw corrected by moving the, concerned authority or even by filing a suit. But this does not mean that when such a question is raised during ceiling proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot go and examine that question. It was the duty of the Sub-Divisional Officer to have made an inquiry and come to a finding as to whether the latter Jernabandi is correct or not or the earlier Jamabandi is correct or not anti what should have been the correct position of the record, and, this objection of the petitioner is factually correct or not that here are four co-sharers in the holding in question. Even when such an objection is raised during the ceiling proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Officer has to make an inquiry into that and find out what is the correct extent of the petitioner's holding. Even when such an objection is raised during the ceiling proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Officer has to make an inquiry into that and find out what is the correct extent of the petitioner's holding. It is true that there goes a presumption of the correctness of the revenue record, but when, the petitioner has submitted the earlier Jamabandi, then an inquiry should have been made as to how in the latter settlement operations the land came to be recorded solely in the name of the petitioner. The presumption of correctness to some extent stands destroyed by the earlier Jamabandi. If there was no basis for change in the record after Jamabandi for the St. Years 2011 to 2014, then it would be obvious that the latter Jamabandi cannot be said to be correct. It may be that other co-sharers might have relinquished their rights in the land or might have transferred the land by way of sale, gift or otherwise and in this manner the lands ultimately came to be recorded solely in the name of the petitioner, but there is no such material before this Court and this fact has not been explained in the return filed on behalf of the non-petitioners as to how in the latter Jamabandi the land exclusively came to be recorded in the name of the petitioner as a sole Khatedar. In such a situation, it would be proper that the impugned orders may be quashed and the Sub-Divisional Officer may be directed to hold an inquiry afresh in the matter relating to the aforesaid objection. 4. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the orders Ex. I, Ex. II and Ex. III are quashed and set aside and it is directed that a fresh inquiry shall be conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer into the aforesaid objection of the petitioner and decide the question afresh. There will be no order as to costs. *******