JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners Khyali Ram and Sohanlal were allotted ten Bighas of land bearing Khasra No. 77 of village Sondi by the Tehsildar, (Land Records), Nohar, vide order dated 4.9.1976. The allotment was made to the petitioners on the basis of temporary allotment of land to them since 1968. In the year 1977, the Tehsildar, Nohar, moved an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (for short, 'the Act') in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nohar, for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the land in question is a Johad Paitan land which has been wrongly recorded as 'Barani land' during the settlement operations. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, after giving notices to the petitioners, by his order dated 3.7.1978, cancelled the' allotment made in favour of the petitioners and declared the land as 'Johad Paitan land'. While cancelling the allotment, the Sub-Divisional Officer observed that the land in question was earlier recorded in the Record of Rights as Johad Paitan land during the last settlement operations. Dissatisfied with the order dated 3.7.1978, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, vide its order dated 28.3.79, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and maintained the order dated 3.7.78, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 28.3.79, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer and the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, by his judgment dated 15.4.86, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioners. It is against this judgment dated 15.4.86, passed by the Board of Revenue that the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the settlement operations were completed in the year 1973 while the application under Section 136 of the Act has been moved by the Tehsildar in the year 1977 and after the completion of the settlement operations, the Tehsildar had no power to correct the entry made in the Record of Rights and cannot change the nature of the land. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter has been decided by the Sub- Divisional Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue, the Revenue Appellate Authority and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar. It is contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that after completion of the settlement operations, the Sub-Divisional Officer, who has been conferred with the powers of the Land Record Officer, has power to pass the order regarding correction of the entry in the Annual Register. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The question which requires consideration in the present case, is: whether the Land Record Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer), Nohar, has jurisdiction under Section 136 of the Act, to correct the entry made in the Record of Rights of the Annual Register ? Section 136 of the Act deals with the Decision of Dispute relating to class or tenure of any tenant or regarding the rent or revenue payable or regarding the entries in the Annual Register and authorises the Land Record Officer to decide these disputes in accordance with the provisions of Section 123 or 124 or 125 of the Act, as the case may be. Section 132 of the Act, which deals with the maintenance of the Record of Rights, after completion of the survey/settlement operations, authorises the Land Record Officer to prepare annually or at such longer interval as the State Government may prescribe, a set or amended sets, as the case may be, of the Register enumerated in Section 114 of the Act. The Land Record Officer is further authorised to record in the Annual Register all the changes that may take place and any transaction that may affect any of the rights or interest recorded. The Annual Register is the part of the Record of Rights and after the survey, settlement or record operations, it is necessary to up date the record. Maintenance of the Record is a continuous process as it aims at keeping the Record of Rights upto-date. To up date the record, the Land Record Officer has been authorised to make necessary changes in the record occurred from time to time. Maintenance of the Record is a continuous process as it aims at keeping the Record of Rights upto-date. To up date the record, the Land Record Officer has been authorised to make necessary changes in the record occurred from time to time. When the Land Record Officer has been authorised' to make necessary changes in the record of Annual Register then it cannot be 'said that he has no power to correct the errors occurred in the revenue record. It is true that the Land Record Officer, under Section 136 of the Act, has no power to convert the nature of the land but if a wrong and arbitrary entry has been made in the Revenue Record during the course of settlement operations then he is not powerless to correct that entry. The Board has, also, power, under Section 9 of the Act, in its supervisory jurisdiction, to correct the entry illegally or arbitrarily made. If the Board has the power then the order, passed by the Board of Revenue, does not require any interference. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in: The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Than Singh and Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 163 of 1978 - decided on May 5,1978 that "all disputes regarding entries in the annual register after the expiry of the settlement operations clearly fall within the ambit of Section 136 of the Act, and they shall be decided by him in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Act on the basis of the possession. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is, therefore, devoid of any substance. 5. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has, also, no merit. The notices were issued to the petitioners. Even as per their own case, they received the notices. After the service of the notices, the petitioners appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar and filed reply to the notices and the case was adjourned first for inspecting the site and then for further proceedings. The notices were issued to the petitioners. Even as per their own case, they received the notices. After the service of the notices, the petitioners appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar and filed reply to the notices and the case was adjourned first for inspecting the site and then for further proceedings. After appearing for the first time before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioners remained absent and thereafter the matter was decided by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of the evidence available on record. The petitioners were given reasonable opportunity to defend their case and it cannot be said that the order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The order, passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Officer, as affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as by the Board of Revenue, does not require any interference as these orders have been passed on the basis of the material available on record. The land in question, in the Record of Rights, was shown as Johad Paitan land and no order for converting the nature of the land has been passed but the same was allotted to the petitioners treating the land as the 'Barani land'. The nature of the land can be converted only by the State Government or by the person authorised by the State Government in this behalf and no such order for conversion of the land from Johad Paitan to the Baani land has been placed on record and, therefore, no allotment of the land in question could have been made to the petitioners by the Tehsildar. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer was, therefore, justified in cancelling the allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner and the entries showing them as the Khatedar tenants and declaring the.land as Johad Paitan land which was earlier entered as such in the revenue record. The orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, therefore, do not require any interference. 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******