Phukan, J. — By this common judgment and order we propose to dispose of Civil Rule Nos. 73 and 74 of 1979 as these two petitions have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 1.6.76 passed by the learned Director of Settlement and Land Records, Government of Tripura in Revision Case Nos. 81 and 82 of 1975. 2. The two petitions under section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960, for short, TLR & LR Act, were filed before the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the petition of the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 73 of 1979 was registered as Revision Case No. 82 of 1975 and the other petition was registered as Revision Case No. 81 of 1975. The petitioners of Civil Rule No. 73 of 1979 claimed an area of 7 drones 6 kanis equivalent to 47.29 acres of land on the southern half of C.S. Plot' No. 7272 of mouja Gandhigram as belonging to their settled land in old jote No. 31 under K.T. No. 284. Similarly, petitioners of Civil Rule No. 74 of 1979 claimed similar area of land on the northern half of the said plot as belonging to their settled land of jote No. 29 under Ex. K. T. No. 284. Toe Revision petitions were dismissed by the impugned order. The petitioners claimed both plots of land on the ground that lands were settled by Maharaja Kirit Bikram Kishore Deb Barma Manikya Bahadur, respondent No. 3 on payment of nazarana and also yearly rents. According to petitioners, they also took over possession of the entire land and even after vesting of the said plot of land in the State Government under the provisions of section 134 of the TLR & LR Act they have been possessing the same. When the settlement operation was going on, the constituted attorney of respondent No. 3 was approached regarding the preparation of record of right in the name of the petitioners and it was told that the petitio­ners had been shown as jotedars of the land in question. When the settlement operation was going on, the constituted attorney of respondent No. 3 was approached regarding the preparation of record of right in the name of the petitioners and it was told that the petitio­ners had been shown as jotedars of the land in question. In the return submitted by respondent No. 3 under section 144 (6) of TLR & LR Act, however, the petitioners took a copy of the Khatian in 1974 and on perusal of the same come to know for the first time that the land was shown in the revenue record as khash land of respondent No. 3. It has been alleged that as the petitioners were raiyats under the Government after vesting of the land their names should have been recorded in respect of the disputed land as raiyats. For correction of the said revenue record petitions under section 95 of the TLR & LR Act were filed before the Director of Settlement & Land Records which were rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Director the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. We may quote below section 95 of the TLR & LR Act : "95. Revision-The State Government or the Collector may, at any time, either on his own motion or on the application of any party, call for the records of any proceedings before any revenue officer subordinate to him for the purpose of 'satisfying himself as to the legality or the propriety of any order passed by such revenue Officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit: Provided that he shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any right between private persons without having given to the parties interested notice to appear and be heard." 4. Reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 29 of 1976 (Agartala Bench). Reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 29 of 1976 (Agartala Bench). Learned Single Judge considered the language of the aforesaid section 95 and also compared the said section with section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and section 95 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act and also con­sidered the decisions of this Court in Abdul Gani Sarkar vs. Assam Board of Revenue, A. I. R. 1970 Assam & Nagaland, 82, Satyaranjan Paul Majnmder vs. Assam Board of Revenue A. I. R. 1977 Gauhati, 83, and Thokchom Parijat Singh vs. Maibam Jugi Singh in Civil Rule No. 1 of 1975 decided on 31. 5. 79 (Imphal Bench). After due con­sideration the learned Judge held that section 95 of the TLR & LR Act gives very wide power- and may be invoked in an appropriate case. It does not prescribe any limitation of time and it can be invoked even where appeal lies but has not been availed of. With respect we agree to the above law laid down by the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Judge held that "before invoking powers under section 95 there must be a pending proceeding and a final order passed in the said proceeding". With respect, we find ourselves unable to agree with the above interpretation of section 95. In our opinion, the powers under section 95 can be invoked when any order is passed in any proceeding whether pending or disposed of. This power is not restricted to "final order" passed in such proceedings. Even against an interlocutory order a revision under section 95 would lie. We have come to the above conclusion as there are no qualifying words before the words 'any proceeding” and 'order' appearing in section 95 of the TLR & LR Act. Giving a restricted meaning as given by the learned Single Judge would amount to adding words in the statute, which we cannot do. We have also taken note of the fact that the powers conferred on the authorities under section 95 of the Act are very wide and can be invoked at any stage to do justice in a case. Giving a restricted meaning as given by the learned Single Judge would amount to adding words in the statute, which we cannot do. We have also taken note of the fact that the powers conferred on the authorities under section 95 of the Act are very wide and can be invoked at any stage to do justice in a case. 5 Our attention has also been drawn to the finding of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case to the effect that an order for publication of record of right can by no means be treated as one passed in such a proceeding' fpara-7 of the judgment). We have given very careful consideration to the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge. With respect, we find it difficult to agree with the same. In our opinion, the record of rights cannot be published unless there is an order passed by the competent authority to that effect. Therefore we hold that publication of record of rights is only as a result of an order passed in a proceeding under, the TLR & LR Act and a petition for revision will lie against any erroneous entry in such a record of right. 6. Applying the above law to the case in hand we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned revisional order was passed without jurisdiction as there was no order passed in any proceeding under the TLR & LR Act, In the revenue record the land could not have been shown as a khash land without a proceeding and an order in that regard. We, therefore, hold that the learned Director had jurisdiction to entertain both the revision petitions. 7. Our attention has, however, been drawn to sub-section (3) of section 11 of the TLR & LR Act which runs as follows :- "11 (3). We, therefore, hold that the learned Director had jurisdiction to entertain both the revision petitions. 7. Our attention has, however, been drawn to sub-section (3) of section 11 of the TLR & LR Act which runs as follows :- "11 (3). Where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the Government, or by any person as against the Government and the claim is disputed, such dispute shall be decided by the Collector whose order shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be final." We are of the opinion that where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the Govern­ment, or by any person as against the Government such dispute or claim is covered by the aforesaid sub-section (3). In the instant case, there are allegations and counter allegations regarding settlement of the land by Ex. Maharaja and surrender of the land by him in favour of the Government. The above being the factual position, we are of the opinion that this case can be properly decided only by the authorities under section 11(3) of the TLR & LR Act and it is difficult to decide these issues in revision even though, as we have held, a revision lies and the powers are there in the revisional authority to decide the same. 8. Under the circumstances, we allow the petitioners in both the Civil Rules to approach the Collector under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the TLR & LR and the Collector shall dispose of the 'petitions expeditiously as the matters are pending since 1975. 9. The question of limitation was also raised and it was stated at the bar that there is no limit fixed under the TLR & LR Act for filing such a petition. We do not propose to go into this aspect of the matter. However, we direct that if such petitions are filed the Collector shall entertain them and decide the matter on facts after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties and without going into the question of limitation, if raised. 10. In the result, both the petitions are allowed as per directions indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs. Dr. Saraf, J. — I agree.