JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed for declaring Section 82, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act) as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 300A of-the Constitution of India and for quashing the order dated 6-12-1988 (Annex.-13) of the Collector, Pali referring the matter under Section 82 of the Act for restoring the entries in the revenue record in respect of the disputed land in the name of Charbhuja Temple, order dated 23-7-1990 (Annex.-14) accepting the reference, order dated 3-8-1991 (Annex.-17) effecting mutation in favour of Charbhuja Temple and entries Annex.-18. made in Jamabandi Khasra in respect of the disputed land relating to the Smt. Years 2046-49. 2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition may. by summarised thus. The respondent No.5 Ram Chandra moved an application before the Collector, Pali on February 25, 1987 averring that the disputed land was in the khatedari of the temple, it was given to Devji (father of the petitioner Deepa) for cultivation on Panti basis,' Deepa manipulated to get his name entered in place of Charbhuja temple in the revenue records in respect of the disputed land, the Collector made reference under Section 82 of the Act by his order dated 6-12-1988 (Annex.-13]' an the Board of Revenue accepted the reference by its order dated 23-7-1990 (Annex.-14) 3. At the commencement of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the relief sought in the writ petition for declaring Section 82. Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 as ultra vires. He contended that the respondent No.5 Ram Chandra filed an application under Section 177, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be called the Act of 1955) against Deepa in the year 1963, it was dismissed the order of dismissal was confirmed in Revision No.2/64/Pali by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated June 14, 1965, as such this order operates as res judicata and the learned Member, Revenue Board, Ajmer seriously erred to ignore it. He further contended that in the Khasra Girdawaris of Smt. Years 1996-99 (Annex.-1), 20-18-21 (Annex.-2), 2022-25 (Annex.-3) and Khatoni Smt Years 2018-21 (Annex.-4) and 2026-2049 (Annex.-5) and also in the settlement slip Annex.-6, the petitioner has been shown as a tenant. He further contended that in the Khasra Girdawaris of Smt. Years 1996-99 (Annex.-1), 20-18-21 (Annex.-2), 2022-25 (Annex.-3) and Khatoni Smt Years 2018-21 (Annex.-4) and 2026-2049 (Annex.-5) and also in the settlement slip Annex.-6, the petitioner has been shown as a tenant. He also contended that the disputed land was resumed under Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be called the Act of 1952). He lastly relied upon sub-para (3) of para 57 of the decision of the larger Bench (five Hon'ble Members of the Board of Revenue) reported as Shri Shiv Ram v. Shri Mesha, 1987 R.R.D. 261. 4. The learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for respondent No.5 duly supported the impugned orders. 5. Section 82 .of the Act runs as under: "82. Power to call for records and proceedings and reference to State Government of Board.- The Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records (or a Collector) may call for and examine the recordof any case decided or proceedings held by any revenue court- or officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order.passed and as to the regularity of proceedings; and, if he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order passed by such subordinate court or officer should be varied cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board, if the case is of a judicial nature or connected with settlement, or for the orders of the State Government if the case is of a non-judicial nature not connected with settlement; and the Board or the State Government, as the case may be, shall thereupon pass such order as it thinks fit." It is clear from the above-quoted provisions that they are applicable only after a case has been decided or proceedings have been held, for quashing the order or proceedings. Thus there is no question of applicability of the principles of res judicata. The learned Member, Board of Revenue has rightly observed in his order that in reference proceedings ejectment is not ordered and only record is corrected. Sub-para (3) of Para 57 of the said decision (Shri Shiv Ram v. Shri Misru, 1987 RRD 261) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, runs as under: "(3) A person who. Sub-para (3) of Para 57 of the said decision (Shri Shiv Ram v. Shri Misru, 1987 RRD 261) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, runs as under: "(3) A person who. immediately preceding the commencement of the Jagirs Act, is validly and in conformity with the provisions of law, entered in the revenue records as a khatedar, pattedar. khadamdar or under any other description implying that he is a tenant having heritable and full transferable rights in the tenancy of the Muafi land of a Hindu Idol or deity, shall become a khatedar tenant of such land on resumption of the muafi for purposes of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 or under any other law for the time being in force. However, if he is not so entered, or did not enjoy both heritable and full transferable rights immediately prior to the commencement of the Jagirs Act on 18-2-1952, then khatedari rights cannot accrue to him on lands held by a Hindu Idol after the commencement of the Jagirs Act." These observations are based oh Section 9 of the Act. of 1952. It runs .as under: "9. Khatedari rights in jagir lands - Every tenant in a jagir land who at the commencement of this Act is entered in the revenue records as a khatedar, pattedar; khademdar or under any other description implying that the tenant has.heritable and full transferable right in the tenancy shall continue to have such rights and shall be called a khatedar tenant in respect of such land." No document filed with the writ petition shows that the petitioner Deepa had heritable and transferable rights in the disputed land on February 18,1952 - the date on which the Act of 1952 came into force. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, Ajmer has also observed in his order dated 23-7-1990 (Annex.-14) that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove that he had heritable and transferable rights in the disputed land where the Jagir was resumed. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, Ajmer has also observed in his order dated 23-7-1990 (Annex.-14) that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove that he had heritable and transferable rights in the disputed land where the Jagir was resumed. A Division Bench of this Court has observed in Ramlal v. Board of Revenue , 1991 RRD 13 Para 15, as follows : "Thus it is clear that either it must be cultivated with ones labour or the labour of the family member .or- by servant on wages pay-able in cash or kind but not by way of share in crops. On the resumption of Jagir the khudkast land remained with the khatedar and the other land vested in the State. Under Section-9 of the Act of 1952, every tenant in a Jagir land who at the commencement of this Act is entered in the revenue records as a Khamdar, Pattedar or under any other description implying that the tenant has heritable and full transferable rights in the tenancy shall continue to have such rights and shall be called a Khatedar tenant in respect of such land." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was repeatedly requested to point out as to how and on what basis the petitioner was shown as a tenant in the settlement slips (Annex.- 6 & 7) as prior to them the petitioner was never shown as a tenant of the disputed land in any revenue record. According to the provisions of Section 126 of the Act, existing records are only taken into consideration during survey and settlement. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed khasra girdawari relating to Smt Year 2012 during which Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came into force. If he would have shown as a sub-tenant of the disputed land, he would have acquired khatedari rights under Section 19 of the Act of 1955. Thus there is no substance in the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.Petition dismissed. *******