JUDGMENT 1. 1. Some facts are not disputed and that they are these. Before the agricultural lands of the non-petitioner and others were taken for development under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975 (for short the Act') and the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Rules, 1977 (for short 'the Rules') the petitioner Bansilal was the khatedar of khasra No. 78 measuring 9 bighas situated in village Jalimpura, Mathuralal, non-petitioner No. 2 along with other co-sharers was khatedar of khasra No. 92 which measured 3 bighas, 8 biswas. The said Mathuralal and others were also having their residential houses in khasra No. 92. At the time of development of the land, the Corporation took possession of only khasra No. 92 to the extent of the agricultural fields and the area where the houses were situated was left out. After the development of land in the area new khasra numbers were allotted and it so happened that while carving out new survey numbers. the agricultural lands of other agriculturists, including the petitioner and Mathuralal were included. So far as new khasra No. 415 is concerned, it appears that more than 50% of old khasra No. 92 was taken in that khasra and some area of old khasra Nos. 82, 85, 86 and part of khasra No. 78, of which the petitioner was the khatedar were also taken. After the development of land new khasra No. 425 measuring 4 bighas, 4 biswas was carved out and two more khasra numbers, which are presently disputed viz. khasra No. 415 and khasra No. 414 were carved out. As it happens while undertaking the development work the area is bound to be reduced as the land is utilised in construction of drain etc. and therefore, after the development of the area, the Corporation handed-over the possession of khasra No. 415 measuring four bighas, four biswas and khasra No. 425 measuring 4 bighas 6 biswas in all measuring 8 bighas 10 biswas to the petitioner. But when the occasion of handing over the possession of khasra No. 414 measuring 3 bighas, 3 biswas came, Mathuralal filed objections and did not take possession. The objections were that he should be given khasra No. 415 because that was near to his residential house, because in that khasra No. more than 50% of area of his old Khasra has been included. The objections were that he should be given khasra No. 415 because that was near to his residential house, because in that khasra No. more than 50% of area of his old Khasra has been included. In other words, he raised a dispute on the question as to which khasra number should be given to him after development. The Collector called for the report from the Tehsildar and Amin concerned and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, made an order on October 17, 1987, to the effect that out of khasra No. 415, Mathuralal and others will be given possession of khasra No. 415-3 bighas 3 biswas and 414, which is adjacent to khasra No. 415 will be given to the petitioner. Thus the result of this order was that instead of 4 bighas 4 biswas, of khasra No.415, khasra No. 414. 4 bighas' 4 biswas will be given to the petitioner. An appeal was filed against the order of the Additional Collector, and the Divisional Commissioner, Kota, in his judgment dated August 22, 1988, agreeing with the findings of the Additional Collector and the reasoning, dismissed the appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been given possession of khasra No. 415 after development, thereafter no jurisdiction was vested in the Additional Collector, to make an inquiry and the order made by the Additional Collector is without jurisdiction. He further contends that it is a case of exchange of khasra No. 414 and 415 and that can only be done tinder the provisions of Section 48 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 3. We may state that the contentions raised by Mr. Gupta, in assailing the order of learned Additional Collector as well as Division 1 Commissioner, Kota, have no merit. It has already been said earlier that the residential houses of Mathuralal and other co-sharers were in old khasra No. 92 which measured 3 bighas and 8 biswas. While taking the land, the Development Corporation left out the residential portions. After development major portion of old khasra No. 92 was taken in new khasra No. 415. The doors of the house of Mathura Lal and others open in khasra No. 415. While taking the land, the Development Corporation left out the residential portions. After development major portion of old khasra No. 92 was taken in new khasra No. 415. The doors of the house of Mathura Lal and others open in khasra No. 415. Khasra No. 414 though adjoining to khasra No. 415, is at a little distance from the house of Mathuralal and others. The petitioner was also given khasra No. 425 and a look at the trace-map will show that if instead of khasra No.415 measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas, khasra No. 414 which also will now be of four bighas, two biswas, is allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not suffer any inconvenience. But if khasra No.414 is allowed to remain with Mathuralal and others, not only lot of inconvenience shall be caused to them but possibility of his cattle trespassing and thereby there being a dispute between the parties cannot be excluded. We are of the opinion that under Section 42 of Act, the Collector had the powers to decide the dispute in between the land holders. A bare reading of Section 42(1) of the Act will show that any dispute between land holders, which may arise as a result of land development under this Act. shall be determined in an enquiry to be held by the Collector. The word "any" is not without significance and it will include all disputes including the present type of dispute in respect of allotment of particular khasra numbers. Therefore, the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to make an enquiry under section 42(1) of the Act and his order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. An appeal against the aforesaid order lies to the Development Commissioner and the Development Commissioner after taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the matter in agreement of the Additional Collector dismissed the appeal. We are of the opinion that Section 48 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not at all attracted. It is not a case of exchange of agricultural lands, but is a case falling under the provisions of the Act. 4. We find no merit in this writ petition and is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******