Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition for issue of writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated 15-3-2000 in Revision No. A-320-iii/99 (Shivnath Prasad Shrivastava and another v. State of M. P. and others) by the Board of Revenue (to be called as "board" only ). ( 2. ) FACTS necessary for decision of the petition are as follows :- (a) Petitioners on 21-8-97 applied for correction of village map to show actual location of Khasra No. 192 area 0. 35 acre to Collector, Rewa under Sections 32 and 107 (5) of M. P. Land Revenue Code (to be called as "code" only ). According to them they have purchased and obtained possession of land Khasra No. 163/2 from one Ran Bahadur Singh vide sale deed dated 15-5-65. They claimed that they have constructed a house thereupon with boundary wall and a gate after taking necessary sanction from the municipal corporation. They claimed that old Khasra No. 163/2 was renumbered as Khasra No. 192 and old Khasra No. 163/1 was renumbered as Khasra No. 191. They claimed that in collusion with the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 some time back which was not known to them in village map land Khasra No. 191 of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is shown where the house of petitioners is situate and a red line has also been drawn in such map. It is claimed that on basis of such wrong entry in village map R-5 to R-7 are trying to dispossess the petitioners. (b) On the other hand respondent Nos. 5 to 7 claimed that old number of Khasra No. 192 was not 163/2 area 0. 36 acre but it was Khasra No. 163 area 0. 60 acre. Boundaries of land shown in sale deed of the petitioners dated 15-5-65 are misdescribed. Actually petitioners are not in possession of such land described by the boundary. Khasra No. 191 area 0. 15 acre is a southern part of Khasra No. 191 with a room and land surrounded by boundary wall and with a gate belonging to these respondents is situate, such land is shown by red lines in the village map and is in possession of these respondents. There has been no amendment in village map regarding Khasra No. 192 which is shown as it was since settlement in the year 1973. There has been no amendment in village map regarding Khasra No. 192 which is shown as it was since settlement in the year 1973. It was also claimed that the petitioners had not raised any objection at the time of publication of such record of rights and that now they cannot claim correction of the village map. (c) The Collector held that the revenue inspector had already corrected the village map as per actual possession of the parties on spot by red lines. It was also held that the revenue inspector had power to do so under the Manual for Revenue Inspectors and dismissed the application. However, no objection as to jurisdiction or competency of the Collector to decide application was raised before him. The Commissioner also upheld such order and dismissed the appeal. (d) Before Board a new plea was raised that the application of petitioners was not competent under Section 107 (5) of the Code. Neither a village map can be prepared nor revised or corrected in respect of a particular person or particular field. Such correction could be done under Section 116 of the Code. Board upheld such objection and dismissed the revision. ( 3. ) I have heard the advocates of both the sides and have perused the record carefully. ( 4. ) PETITIONERS had applied for correction of village map under Section 32 read with Section 107 (5) of the Code. The Board has held that they could apply under Section 116 of the Code. As interpretation of these provisions is necessary to decide this petition, these sections arc reproduced below :- "32. Inherent power of Revenue Courts.-- Nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. " "107. Field map.-- (1) There shall be prepared a map showing the boundaries of survey numbers or plot numbers and waste lands called the field map for every village except when otherwise directed by the Sate Government. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (5) Such map shall be prepared or revised, as the case may be, by the Settlement Officer at (revenue survey) and by the Collector at all other times and in all other circumstances. " "116. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (5) Such map shall be prepared or revised, as the case may be, by the Settlement Officer at (revenue survey) and by the Collector at all other times and in all other circumstances. " "116. Disputes regarding entry in khasra or in any other landrecords.-- (1) If any person is aggrieved by an entry made in the land records prepared under Section 114 in respect of matters other than those referred to in Section 108, he shall apply to the Tehsildar for its correction within one year of the date of such entry. (2) The Tehsildar shall, after making such enquiry as he may deem fit, pass necessary orders in the matter. " 4. Obviously Section 32 saves the inherent or residuary powers of the Revenue Courts to act in the interest of justice where there is no express provision under the Code to deal with the situation. Section 107 mandates preparation of field map for each village showing boundaries of survey numbers or plot numbers. Such map has to be prepared or revised, as the case may be by the Settlement Officer at revenue survey and by the Collector at all other times and in all other circumstances. ( 5. ) SECTION 114 includes the map in land records. Section 115 authorises the Tehsildar to correct any wrong or incorrect entry in land records prepared by an officer subordinate to him. He can exercise such power suo motu or on his own motion. Section 116 provides a remedy to person aggrieved by a wrong entry in the land records, yet he can apply for such correction only within one year of the date of such entry. In other words if the entry is old the person aggrieved has no remedy under Section 116 of the Code. ( 6. ) OBVIOUSLY Sections 115 and 116 are closely related to Section 114 and thus the Tehsildar under Section 116 has power to correct only those wrong or incorrect entries in the land records which are prepared by an officer subordinate to him. However, it is noteworthy that field map has to be prepared or revised by the settlement officer at the time of revenue survey and by the Collector at all other times and in all other circumstances. However, it is noteworthy that field map has to be prepared or revised by the settlement officer at the time of revenue survey and by the Collector at all other times and in all other circumstances. Obviously neither the settlement officer nor the Collector is a subordinate to a Tehsildar and thus, the Tehsildar can have no power to correct any entry made in preparation or revision of the field map. ( 7. ) THE word "revision" and "revise" are defined as follows in Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition of 1990 on pg. 1312 :- "revision".-- A re-examination or careful reading over for correction or improvement. "revise".-- To review and re-examine for correction, to go over a thing for the purpose of amending, correcting, rearranging, or otherwise improving it; as to revise statutes, or a judgment. State ex rel. Taylor v. Scofield, 184 Wash. 250. 50 P. 2d 896, 897. " In P. Ramanatha Aiyars the Law Lexicon 2 edition 1997 these words are defined as follows :- "revision.-- The act of examining again in order to remove any defect or grant relief against the irregular or improper exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction by a Lower Court (Section 115, CPC ). "revise.-- Revise means to re-examine the finally published record of rights or revised or amend any entry in the finally published record of rights. Must Hasnear Khatun v. Revenue Officer Midnapore, AIR 1971 Cal 105 ,109. [tenancy Law (W. B.) Estates Acquisition Act (1 of 1954) Section 44 (2-a)]". ( 8. ) IN Hasnear v. Revenue Officer ( AIR 1971 Cal 105 ), both the words preparation and revision of records of right were used. The question was could the same officer who prepared the Record of Rights revise such record. The contention that revisional power should be exercised by some superior authority was repelled and it was held :- "the word revise is used in an ordinary sense and means to re-examine the finally published record of rights or review or amend any entry in the finally published record of rights and, as such, there cannot be any objection, if a especially empowered officer re-examines an entry in the record of rights finally published. " The words revise was defined in M/s. Ramkanai Jamini Ranjanpat Pvt. Ltd. v. Member Board of Revenue, W. Bengal, (1976) 3 SCC 369 on page 374 - AIR 1976 SC 1545 is as follows :- "the word revise occurring therein which in dictionary is described as meaning to re-examine, to review, to correct, or to amend the fault is not hedged or qualified by any condition or limitation. The controlling expressions like for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or regularity of the proceeding which are susceptible of being construed as restricting the revisional power to rectification of an illegality or impropriety of the order or of irregularity in the proceeding are also not to be found therein. There is also nothing in the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (hereinafter called the Rules) to circumscribe or limit the power. " ( 9. ) HERE in the present case also the word revise has not been predicated by any controlling expression. Thus clearly the power of correcting field map was encompassed within the power of revision and the learned Collector should not have shirked from his duty to revise or correct the field map after consideration of the matter on merits. ( 10. ) IT is note worthy that on record a report of Tehsildar dated 28-8-98 is also there which fully supports the case of the petitioners about incorrect entry in the field map. Obviously the Revenue Courts have failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them when they did not consider the matter on merits and shut of the inquiry merely because the revenue inspector had drawn a red line which was specifically challenged by the petitioners as erroneous. They should have heard both the parties and should have decided the matter after proper inquiry. ( 11. ) OBVIOUSLY no remedy was available to the petitioners under Section 116 of the Code because the entry was more than one year old. It is noteworthy that well known commentary on the Code by Dr. Harihar Nivas Dwivedi on page 468 has given a long list of cases in which an entry made in the previous year was not corrected on the ground of its being time barred. It is noteworthy that well known commentary on the Code by Dr. Harihar Nivas Dwivedi on page 468 has given a long list of cases in which an entry made in the previous year was not corrected on the ground of its being time barred. It is further noteworthy that in Batulbi v. Munnawar Khan ( 1982 MPWN 304 ), this High Court has held that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to direct correction of entries in revenue record. This is in exclusive jurisdiction of a Revenue Court. ( 12. ) HENCE this petition is hereby allowed. The Revenue Courts have been at fault in taking a very restricted meaning of word revise under Section 107 of the Code. The orders of Revenue Courts are hereby quashed. The Collector is directed to decide the matter afresh after proper inquiry into the matter within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. ( 13. ) BOTH the parties shall bear their own costs. Advocates fee as per schedule.