JUDGMENT 1. - This petition filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, has been preferred against the order dated 18.5.89 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bali, whereby he dismissed petitioner's revision petition and affirmed and order dated 16.10.85 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under sections 447,426,166,167 Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly the relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 12.11.84 complainant Bhik Singh filed a criminal complaint in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Bali against petitioner Tara Chand, who was posted at that time as Tehsildar, Bali, Ram Karan, the then Inspector Land Records, Sevari and Man Singh for the offences under sections 447, 426, 166 & 109 Indian Penal Code. The learned A.C.J.M. transmitted the said criminal complaint under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code. to the S.H.O., Police Station, Bali for registration of the case and investigation. The S.H.O. after completion of the investigation submitted a final report dated 25.1.85. Complainant Bhik Singh filed a protest petition dated 5.4.85. The learned A.C.J.M. after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer and other relevant documents by his order dated 16.10.85 took cognizance against the petitioner as also against co-accused Man Singh & Ram Karan for the afore-mentioned offences. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, who by his order I dated 10.5.89 dismissed the same. Hence this petition. 3. Non-petitioner complainant Bhik Singh despite personal service has preferred I to remain absent. 4. I have heard Sarva Shri S.R. Singhi and Suresh Kumbhat the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.L. Thakur, the learned Public Prosecutor at length and I carefully perused the record of the lower Courts. 5. Hence this petition. 3. Non-petitioner complainant Bhik Singh despite personal service has preferred I to remain absent. 4. I have heard Sarva Shri S.R. Singhi and Suresh Kumbhat the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.L. Thakur, the learned Public Prosecutor at length and I carefully perused the record of the lower Courts. 5. It has been strenuously canvassed by Shri S.R. Singhi that on the day of alleged incident i.e. 23.9.84 the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar, Bali, that on that day he had gone to village Barwa to settle the boundary dispute of co-accused khatedar Man Singh alongwith Ram Karan, Inspector Land Records, that he after getting measurements he found that complainant Bhik Singh, who is the recorded khatedar of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 746, had encroached upon the land bearing Khasra No. 743 of khatedar Man Singh, that he, therefore, on the spot demarcated the boundary between the two Khasra numbers by erecting pillars and directed the complainant not to remove those. Later on it was reported that complainant Bhik Singh had removed those boundary pillars despite his orders for which a notice dated 2/3.11.85 was issued to the complainant to show cause as to why proceedings against him under section 188 Indian Penal Code be not initiated and that to counter blast the same Bhik Singh filed the criminal complaint against him and others. Shri Singhi has urged that in view of the provisions of section 259 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short `the Act'), no proceedings against the petitioner can be taken for anything done during the discharge of his official duties under good faith and that both the Courts below have conveniently overlooked this provision of law. His another limb of argument is that Man Singh had filed an application under section 128 of the Act before the petitioner and also requested for police help and as such the action taken by the petitioner was neither unauthorised nor without authority of law and that in view of this no offence under sections 447, 426, 166 and 167 Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner. Hence the impugned orders passed by the Courts below amount to abuse of the process of the Court and deserve to be quashed. 6. Hence the impugned orders passed by the Courts below amount to abuse of the process of the Court and deserve to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Shri K.L. Thakur, the learned Public Prosecutor has stoutly opposed this petition and asserted that Man Singh did not file any application under B section 128 of the Act before the petitioner, that the `Fard Mauka' dated 23.9.84 was prepared in compliance of the purported order of the learned S.D.O., Bali dated 21,5.84, whereby he had simply forwarded the original criminal complaint dated 9.4.84 filed by Man Singh under section 107/116(3) Criminal Procedure Code, against Bhik Singh and others to the Inspector Land Records for necessary inquiry and report and that in that criminal complaint the learned S.D.M. did not authorise the said Inspector to conduct survey and mark the boundary of Man Singh's field. He has contended that besides this that in September, 1984 settlement operations were continuing in Tehsil, Bali and as such the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to undertake survey and demarcate the boundaries of the filed under section 128 of the Act. He has urged that section 259 of the Act simply excludes the jurisdiction of the civil Court and not of a criminal Court, hence the petitioner can not taken any protection for his mala fide, illegal and unauthorised acts. He has also reiterated the reasoning's given by the Courts below and supported the impugned orders. 7. I have given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival f submissions. It appears that on 9.4.84, Man Singh, who is the recorded Khatedar of agricultural land bearing old Khasra No. 743 (New Khasra No. 894) measuring 12 bighas and 3 biswas situated in village Barwa, Tehsil, Bali filed a criminal complaint under section 107 read with 116(3) Criminal Procedure Code. before the S.D.M., Bali against Bhik Singh and his son and grand son namely Roop Singh and Prakash Singh alleging that they had illegally trespassed over his land measuring about 1 bigha for which he had separately filed an application, that on the said application the R.I. Halka Savari and Patwari Halka Barwa were ordered to make measurements and to demarcate the boundaries and that in compliance thereof the said revenue officials had measured his field and found that Bhik Singh had trespassed on one bigha of his land illegally. In his criminal complaint, he further alleged that Bhik Singh had threatened to kill him and as such Bhik Singh and Prakash Singh be bound down for keeping peace. The learned S.D.M., Bali forwarded that original criminal complaint to Revenue Inspector, Savari for necessary inquiry and report, but no action was taken. It appears that on 21.9.84 Man Singh submitted an application to the petitioner (Tehsildar, Bali) wherein he submitted that he had procured the permission of the S.D.O., Bali for survey and measurement of his khatedari land vide order dated 21.5.84, and that to keep peace it was necessary to get police assistance. He, therefore, prayed that necessary order for getting police assistance during the survey and measurement operation of his field be passed. Thereafter the petitioner went to village Barwa. He also took a police constable from the Out Post and got the survey and measurements of Khasra No. 743 conducted by the Patwari Halka and Ram Karan, R.I. It is alleged that complainant Bhik Singh was also informed, but he declined to accept the notice. It was found that a strip of land of Khasra No. 734 shown in red ink in the memo "Fard Mauka" dated 23.9.84 was in unauthorised possession of complainant Bhik Singh and that crop of maize and "Kheel" was standing thereon. It appears that on 23.9.84 the petitioner also got the boundary pillars erected and restrained complainant Bhik Singh vide notice dated 23.9.84 from removing those boundary pillars. 8. Section 128 of the Act lays down that all disputes concerning boundaries shall be decided by the Land Records Officer in the manner laid down in section 111. From the evidence collected by the I.O., it is not borne out that on 23.9.84 settlement operations in Tehsil, Bali were not in force. As per State Government Notification No. F. 6/65/(Rev.)/Group-4/73 dated 5.11.73, the duties imposed and power conferred by section 128 of the Act on the Land Records Officers shall be performed and exercised by the Sub-Divisional Officer in their respective jurisdiction, when the settlement operations are would up. 9. Proviso to section 128 proclaims that applications in relation to boundaries of field may be made and disposed off by the Tehsildar in cases, where there exists no dispute as to such boundaries, but on account of-the absence of proper boundary marks there is the likelihood of such a dispute arising. 9. Proviso to section 128 proclaims that applications in relation to boundaries of field may be made and disposed off by the Tehsildar in cases, where there exists no dispute as to such boundaries, but on account of-the absence of proper boundary marks there is the likelihood of such a dispute arising. The, State Government vide its Notification No. F. 5(21)/Rev./Group-4/80/36 dated 4th September, 1982 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Section 260 of the Act and in supersession of its earlier Notification dated 17.6.60 has directed that the powers conferred by the proviso to section 128 of the said Act on a Tehsildar of disposing off applications concerning boundaries of fields shall also be exercised by the village panchayat of the village in which the land is situated. It has been further directed that the applications received by the Tehsildar in this behalf shall be duly entered in a register to be maintained for the disposal of such applications and, thereafter, forwarded to the concerned Village panchayat for disposal. In cases in which the village panchayat fails to dispose off such an application within 45 days from the date of receipt by it either directly or through the Tehsildar, the village panchayat will cease to have any jurisdiction in the matter, and that such application will be forwarded to the Tehsildar having jurisdiction forthwith, who will enquire in to and dispose off the application within 30 days of its receipt by him. Thus, in the first instance such applications are to be forwarded to the village panchayat for disposal and if such application is not disposed off within 45 days by the Village Panchayat then the Tehsildar having jurisdiction shall dispose of such application. The powers under the proviso to section 128 of the Act can be exercised by the Village Panchayat and also the Tehsildar. 10. Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (in short the Rules) deals with survey and reports. Sub-rule (iii) has been added to Rule 34 vide G.S.R. 4 dated 15.4.83. It proclaims that if any Khatedar or Gair Khatedar tenant desires to have his field surveyed and demarcated, or to affix boundary marks along the periphery of his field, he shall apply for the same to the Tehsildar in the prescribed form. Sub-rule (iii) has been added to Rule 34 vide G.S.R. 4 dated 15.4.83. It proclaims that if any Khatedar or Gair Khatedar tenant desires to have his field surveyed and demarcated, or to affix boundary marks along the periphery of his field, he shall apply for the same to the Tehsildar in the prescribed form. This sub-rule requires that before making such application, the applicant shall deposit fees in the Government treasury for the purpose at the prescribed rates and append a copy of the treasury challan with such application. On receipt of the application the Tehsildar will get the same registered in a separate register, and shall also give a receipt to the tenant. He shall, thereafter, direct the concerned Patwari, or the Inspector Land Records, as the case may be, to undertake the survey and demarcation work in the presence of the tenant and submit report regarding the survey of the field and boundary marks within one month. Thus, it is abundantly apparent that an application filed under the proviso to section 128 of the Act has to be accompanied by the treasury challan depositing the prescribed fees, and that thereafter such application shall be registered in a separate register. A bare perusal of the application dated 21.9.84 filed by Man Singh to the Tehsildar, Bali unmistakeably reveals that it was neither an application under the proviso to section 128 of the Act nor any treasury challan of the prescribed fees was enclosed therewith nor such an application was registered by the petitioner in the register On the other hand, Man Singh in that application had simply mentioned that he had procured the order of the S.D.O., Bali for survey and demarcation of his field. However no such order was filed by him. Therefore, it can not be inferred by any stretch of imagination that Man Singh had filed that application under the proviso to section 128 of the Act before the petitioner and that the latter in exercise of his powers under the said proviso had gone to the village Barwar for getting the survey, measurement and demarcation of Khasra No. 743. On the other hand, it is crystal clear that the S.D.O. simply forwarded the criminal complaint of Man Singh filed under section 107/116(3) Criminal Procedure Code against Bhik Singh and others to the Inspector (L.R.), Sevari for necessary inquiry and report. On the other hand, it is crystal clear that the S.D.O. simply forwarded the criminal complaint of Man Singh filed under section 107/116(3) Criminal Procedure Code against Bhik Singh and others to the Inspector (L.R.), Sevari for necessary inquiry and report. That criminal complaint which was filed before the S.D.M., Bali under his criminal jurisdiction, but was forwarded to the R.I., Sevari vide order dated 21.5.84 by the S.D.O., Bali. As mentioned earlier in that criminal complaint Man Singh had not prayed that his field .bearing Khasra No. 747 be again got surveyed, measured and demarcated. On the other hand, the only prayer made by him was that Bhik Singh and others be bound down to keep peace. In such circumstances the order dated 21.5.84 of the S.D.O., Bali positively' did not authorise the petitioner to conduct survey, measurement and demarcation of Khasra No. 743. Therefore, prima facie the action of the petitioner for getting conducted the survey, measurement and demarcation of Khasra No. 743 on 23.9.84 was neither in exercise of his powers under the proviso to section 128 of the Act nor in compliance of the S.D.O.'s order dated 21.5.84. The petitioner was also not authorised to commit criminal trespass in the field of complainant Bhik Singh, where his crops were standing to cause damage thereof and to erect pillars in Bhik Singh's field. The said action of the petitioner was presumably unauthorised, mala fide and against provisions of the Act. 11. Section 259 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act deals with the Rule making power of the State Government and has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. Section 259 of the Act proclaims that no suit or other proceedings shall, unless otherwise excepted by any express provision made in this Act or in any other enactment or law for the time being in force, lie or be instituted in any civil Court with respect to any matter arising-under and provided for by this Act. Thus, this section deals with the exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Courts in respect of the matters exclusively triable by the revenue Courts or officers and matters arising under the Act and revenue Courts, which have been bestowed with exclusive jurisdiction to deal therewith. But this section does not exclude the jurisdiction of criminal Courts. Thus, this section deals with the exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Courts in respect of the matters exclusively triable by the revenue Courts or officers and matters arising under the Act and revenue Courts, which have been bestowed with exclusive jurisdiction to deal therewith. But this section does not exclude the jurisdiction of criminal Courts. It also does not save and protect a revenue officer from the liability of his criminal acts, which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code or any other Act. Hence the first contention raised by Shri Singhi that petitioner is protected by the provisions of section 259, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, in fact it should be Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, is clearly misconceived and the same is hereby repelled. 12. At this stage even prima facie, the action of the petitioner cannot be held to be bona fide or in discharge of his duties as Tehsildar. From the police statements of Bhik Singh, Dhool Singh, Jethu Singh, Sarpanch, Bhoor Singh and the entries of Jamabandi of Khasra Nos. 743 and 746, Naksha Kistwar of Village Barwa and other documents prima facie ingredients of offences under sections 447, 426,166,167 Indian Penal Code appear to have been made out against the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the lower Courts have given valid and detailed reasons for taking cognizance against the petitioner, which do not warrant any interference. 13. The allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the aforementioned witnesses recorded by the I.O. at their face value disclose the essential ingredients of the afore-mentioned offences for which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint also do not appear to be patently absurd and inherently improbable to reach a conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. The criminal complaint on which the crime was registered does not suffer from any fundamental legal defect. To my mind, the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process against the petitioner is neither capricious nor arbitrary. 14. Shri S.R. Singhi has relied on the case of Prem Nath v. Smt. Surendra Krishnan and State, 1992 Cr. L.J. (Del) 2581 . In that case proceedings under sections 107 and 150 Criminal Procedure Code. were initiated. The Magistrate in the course of discharge of his duties issued a non-bailable warrant against non-applicant Dr. 14. Shri S.R. Singhi has relied on the case of Prem Nath v. Smt. Surendra Krishnan and State, 1992 Cr. L.J. (Del) 2581 . In that case proceedings under sections 107 and 150 Criminal Procedure Code. were initiated. The Magistrate in the course of discharge of his duties issued a non-bailable warrant against non-applicant Dr. P.G. Krishnan, who was Professor of Law in Delhi University. He was alleged to be a heart patient. It is alleged that he died on account of issuance of warrant of arrest against him. The complainant Smt. Surendra Krishnan and her deceased husband were tenants of the disputed premises. There were dispute between the land lord and the complainant. Proceedings under section 107/150 Criminal Procedure Code. were commenced by the land lord against them. The order was passed by the Magistrate and warrants were issued against the complainant's husband by police personnel after visiting the premises. The complainant's husband, who was alleged to be a heart patient, died. The complainant filed a criminal complaint against the Magistrate and concerned police officers for offences under sections 302 & 120-B Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate took cognizance against them for the said offences. The accused filed an application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. The Delhi High Court held that there was no nexus between the death of the complainant's husband and the proceedings drawn by Magistrate against him, that the order passed in the proceedings under section 107/150 Criminal Procedure Code was admittedly done in the course of discharge of duties and obligations of the Magistrate and that even if the order, which the Magistrate had passed was erroneous, then also he could not be prosecuted for that reason, because it is always open to the aggrieved party to assail and challenge the order before the higher Court. It was further held that the proceedings were taken in discharge of duties and the concerned officers, could not be harassed or humiliated and compelled to face criminal prosecution on that count and the proceedings were quashed. Apparently such are not the facts of the case on hand. Here the petitioner without any authority of law is alleged to have criminally trespassed over the field of complainant Bhik Singh, uprooted his standing crops and thereby committed mischief and also got prepared allegedly incorrect `Fard Mauka' dated 23.9.84 with an intent to cause injury to the complainant. Apparently such are not the facts of the case on hand. Here the petitioner without any authority of law is alleged to have criminally trespassed over the field of complainant Bhik Singh, uprooted his standing crops and thereby committed mischief and also got prepared allegedly incorrect `Fard Mauka' dated 23.9.84 with an intent to cause injury to the complainant. Therefore, Prem Nath's case (supra) renders little assistance's to the petitioner. 15. No other point was pressed before me. 16. In the premises of the above discussion, this petition is devoid of any force and substance and the same is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned A.C.J.M., Bali on 16.8.95. The record of the lower Courts be sent back forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******