Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioners are the daughters of Kaliya. Kaliya had died on 6.9.1986, leaving behind him the petitioners as legal heirs alongwith his wife Smt. Ganeshi. Ganeshi too expired on 4.9.88. There was certain land measuring 12 bighas and 7 biswas in Khasra No. 2369, 2410, 2614, 1618, 2411, 2615, 2369/3056 and 2618/3057. (Earlier Khasra Nos. were numbered as 684, 686, 743/824, situated at village Kali Pahadi, Tehsil Dausa, District Jaipur). It is stated that during the operation of the settlement, the mutation was entered in the name of private respondents i.e. Govinda s/o Girdhari and Shrawan s/o Hatya, whereas as per the law, the mutation should have been in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners remained in possession and could not know the illegality committed against their interests. It is stated that the deceased (father of the petitioners) was granted the settlement parcha and therefore, mutations should have been entered in the names of the present petitioners after the death of Kaliya. The settlement of possession had closed and the only remedy according to the petitioners available to them was to move an application for reference to the authorities under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act (for short the Act, Vide Annexure 6, the Settlement Commissioner on 29th of January, 1990 after going through the facts of the case had referred the matter to the Director of Land Records, for interference under the provisions of law on the ground that khatedari had not been properly mutated after the death of Kaliya and the legal representatives of the deceased Kaliya have been illegally deprived of their rights without any notice to them. The recommendation made by the Settlement Commissioner are reasoned one. The Director (Land Records), who was exercising the powers under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, did not receipt the recommendations by the Settlement Commissioner. The reason given by him as was that because of the reason that no State interest is involved, therefore, it shall not be appropriate to interfere in matter under Section 82 of the Act. However, while passing the impugned order Annexure 7, the Authority had recommended that this matter does require some inquiry in detail and in case any law has been violated and public interest or State interest is involved, the matter be referred again for re-consideration of the reference. However, while passing the impugned order Annexure 7, the Authority had recommended that this matter does require some inquiry in detail and in case any law has been violated and public interest or State interest is involved, the matter be referred again for re-consideration of the reference. This is the order Annexure 7, which is being attached by Mr. Jain. (2). None appears on behalf of the respondents even though they had been served, therefore, an exparte decision is being given against the respondents. According to my opinion, the reasons given by the Director of Land Records that the reference can only be made if there is any interest of the public or State is involved or some rights of the State are violated, is not the cogent reason for refu- sing to interfere under Section 82 of the Act. It has been brought on record that the legal heirs of deceased Kaliya had been illegally deprived of their rights at their back without any notice to them during the settlement operation. The settlement operations had closed. The petitioners even though could have filed an appeal or revision but had preferred to inform the authorities of the illegalities committed by the Revenue staff by entering the mutations and under the law which could only be rectified on a reference by the Director (Land Records). If it was the situation and was the finding of the recommending authority i.e. the Settlement Commissioner, the refusal on the part of the Director (Land Records) only on the ground that because of the reason that no State interest is involved or observing that after making inquiry, if it is found that if any public interest is involved, only then reference should be made again, has no basis and such observations in the impugned order Annexure 7 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the specific provisions of Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, wherein no such condition or pre-condition has been imposed. Section 82 reads as under- ``82. Section 82 reads as under- ``82. Power to call for records and proceedings and reference to State Government or Board -The Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records or a Collector may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any revenue court or offi- cer 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 re- versed, 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. (3). From the bare reading of the provisions of Section 82, the reasons given by the Authority while passing order Annexure 7, cannot be sustained and are to be quashed. The case is remanded back to the Director (Land Records), to look into the matter afresh on the recommendations of the Settlement Commissioner, made vide Annexure 6 attached with the recommendations and pass appropriate order as per the provisions of Section 82 and act accordingly (4). The writ petition is allowed and the order Annexure 7 is quashed with the above said observations.