Honble BALIA, J.–Head learned counsel for the parties. (1). This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.1986, by which the petition filed by respondent-Shyama, since deceased was allowed. (2). The facts leading to this appeal, as noticed briefly are that in the Jamabandi of the land records concerning village Harsolav, Tehsil Merta, name of one Govind Dan was recorded as khatader from Samvat Year 2008 to 2027 i.e. to say from 1951-52 to 1970-71. On 17.8.1971, an application was made by respondents Shyama and Pusa alleging inter alia that the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 3146 to 3150, 3179 to 3781 and 3183 are cultivated by them since before Samwat Year 2012 i.e. before commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and they are the khataders of the land in question, therefore, their names be entered as khataders in place of Govind Dan, whose name has wrongly appeared as khatader in the land records. The Tehsildar after obtaining the report from the Patwari, who in turn had examined Kalyan Singh and Prithvi allegedly two of the lineal descendants of the deceased Govind Dan ordered the mutation to be made in favour of said Shyama and Pusa on 24.8.1971, which was confirmed on 7.9.1971. (3). In the first instance 22 persons alleging themselves to be representing different branches of the original holder Govind Dan in lineal decendency as head of their respective branches challenged the aforesaid orders in appeal before Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The said appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 8.9.1975 holding it to be barred by time. (4). However, the present appellant Budh Dan S/o. Awar Dan also claiming to be one of the lineal decendants of Govind Dan filed a revision before the Board of Revenue directly against the order dated 24.8.1971 inter alia on the ground that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to pass any order for making alteration in the mutation entry because by notification dated 11.9.1957 the jurisdiction to make any order under Section 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for effecting change in the land records was exclusively vested in the village panchayat. The other contention which was raised before the Board of Revenue was that the impugned order dated 24.8.1971 was passed in breach of principles of natural justice, as no proper notices were issued to all the persons interested in the land. The other contention which was raised before the Board of Revenue was that the impugned order dated 24.8.1971 was passed in breach of principles of natural justice, as no proper notices were issued to all the persons interested in the land. Both these pleas found favour with the Board of Revenue and by order dated 8.1.1979 the mutation entry No. 249 dated 24.8.1971 was quashed. (5). This led to filing of writ petition No. 157/79 by Shyama one of the applicant claiming mutation in his name in place of Govind Dan. (6). Learned Single Judge by his judgment under appeal dated 10.12.1986 has allowed the writ petition. Considering Clause (b) of Section 260 and the two notifications issued thereunder dated 27.10.1956 published on 8.11.1956 and 11.9.1957 published on 3.10.1957, the former was referred to in later notification, the learned Single Judge opined that conferment of power on any other officer or authority to the exclusion of statutory officer or authority provided under the Act is beyond the competence of the State Government and such power is not vested in the State Government under Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 260 of the Act. Hence, the Board of Revenue was not correct in holding that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to make the impugned order for altering the entires in the land records. The learned Single Judge also found that in the facts and circumstances, a general notice to all the concerned inviting objection to the application made by the petitioner, was given due compliance of principles of natural justice. The learned Judge also noticed that in view of the fact that there are hundreds of decedents claiming interest in the land in question, the only reasonable course open to the Tehsildar was to give a public notice inviting objections from all interests and failure to to give any personal notice to each one of them would not result in invalidating the order on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. (7). During the pendency of this appeal, clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 260 was amended firstly by Ordinance No. 8 of 1988 and ultimately after two intervening Ordinances No. 17/88 and 5/89 vide Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment) Act 5 of 1989. (7). During the pendency of this appeal, clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 260 was amended firstly by Ordinance No. 8 of 1988 and ultimately after two intervening Ordinances No. 17/88 and 5/89 vide Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment) Act 5 of 1989. In Clause (b) of Section 260(1) the words `shall to the exclusion of such officer or authority be performed were added enabling the State Government to direct any other authority or officer specified in notification to discharge, perform or exercise exclusively any duties imposed and powers conferred by the Land Revenue Act or the rules made thereunder or by any law for the time being in force or rule made under such other law and which is required under law to be discharged, performed and exercised by authority lawfully appointed or conferred under such law. (8). This amendment was given retrospective effect by declaring that the amended expression shall be and shall always be deemed to have been substituted in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. (9). On the aforesaid anvil, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the very foundation of the judgment under appeal has been removed by the legislative intervention and, therefore, the order under appeal cannot be sustained and must give way to the legislative amendment. Since the authority other than Tehsildar has been directed to perform functions under Section 135 retrospective to the exclusion of authority named in the Act, Tehsildar must be deemed never to have jurisdiction to proceed under Section 135 since notification vesting such power in Village Panchayat came into existence. (10). Learned counsel for the respondent has urged, firstly, that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the order dated 24.8.1971. He has also by making an application challenged the amendment itself inter alia on the ground that such amendment is beyond legislative competence as it results in excessive delegation of legislative power than permissible under the law to the executive authority for tinkering with the legislative provisions by substituting the statutory provisions by executive fiat at its discretion without providing any guideline for the same. (11). Before proceeding further, two aspects of the subject matter of this litigation is to be looked into. First is about facts. (11). Before proceeding further, two aspects of the subject matter of this litigation is to be looked into. First is about facts. From the material placed before this Court, it appears that the land in question was originally recorded in the name of Govind Dan S/o. Ladu Dan Charan as `Dolidar since long before the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. That fact is apparent from Exhibits 1 and 2 itself. (12). Exhibit-1, which has been filed by the petitioner- respondent in support of his claim is that he was recorded as a khatedar since before the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and was in the possession of the land in question in his own right, which is belied by Exhibit-1 itself. While Exhibit-1 shows the name of the holder of the land as `Dolidar and the occupant as Shyam S/o. Menda and on the back of it is recorded the statement of Shyama, respondent-petitioner himself that he is not a tenant of the land in question and his name may be deleted and the land may be recorded as `khudkhast of Govind Dan as he was cultivating the land only on his behalf and that is how his name came to be deleted at his own request. It is only after about 15 years i.e. On 12.8.1971 Shyama and Puna made an application that the name of Govind Dan has wrongly been entered as khatader, as the land was of their (Shyama and Pusa) khataderi and they claimed to be in possession since Samwat Year 2012 and demanded that they may be conferred upon khataderi. (13). Apparently, it was an application for declaration of the applicants as khataders contrary to the entries made in the land record which came with its presumption of being true under Section 140 of the Land Revenue Act and it was not an application made by any of the applicants to have acquired any right after preparation of the land record by way of succession, transfer or otherwise, which would have necessiated, merely a change in the land records to depict the correct position that has come into existence since last settlement entries were made. (14). The application was made to Patwari. (14). The application was made to Patwari. Apparently, the Patwari purported it to be treating an application under Section 133 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, made a report to the Tehsildar after purportedly recording the statement of one Kalyan Singh S/o. Jai Singh and Prithvi Singh S/o. Shiv Narain reported that on the land in question Pusa S/o. Kishna and Shyama S/o. Genda are in possession of the land. On that premises, on 24.8.1971, the then Tehsildar, Merta ordered that the order conferring khataderi right has been passed in favour of Shyama S/o. Menda and Pusa S/o. Kishna after enquiry and, therefore, now their names may be mututated in the land records. (15). The two aspects of the matter to be noticed here is that in the statement of Kalyan Singh, the land has been described to be the land of `Doli and Prithvi Raj has also stated that the land belong to them. However, both of them have expressed their no objection to the khataderi being conferred on the two applicants. The significant fact to be noticed at this juncture is that there is no dispute between the parties that the original holder Govind Dan had died long back i.e. more than 100 years and the land continued to be standing in his name but the claimants of the share in the said land of `Doli standing in the name of Govind Dan are a large body of lineal descedants of Govind Dan, which also includes the petitioner. Though full details of the existing lineal descendants of Govind Dan was not placed on record by either of the parties or the State perhaps considering it to be im-material for the purpose of controversy raised in this petition. (16). It is on the basis of the order passed by the Tehsildar on 24.8.1971 that the land was mututuated in the name of Shyam and Pusa. The mutation entry (Exhibit-8) also does not refer to any order passed by any competent officer conferring khataderi right over the land in question in favour of the applicants. (17). (16). It is on the basis of the order passed by the Tehsildar on 24.8.1971 that the land was mututuated in the name of Shyam and Pusa. The mutation entry (Exhibit-8) also does not refer to any order passed by any competent officer conferring khataderi right over the land in question in favour of the applicants. (17). Be that as it may, while 22 persons claiming to be the descendants of Govind Dan and share-holder of the land in question in different branches of Govind Dan, filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Nagaur and the appellant Budhdan (since deceased) preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tehsildar. In the revision petition, some sort of pedegree has been given. In the entire pedegree, which is alleged to be attached with the appeal has not been placed on record. Significantly this appeal also makes an assertion that the land was given as a `Doli for the purpose of maintenance of family deity situated in Shiv. (18). While the appeal filed by said 22 persons was dismissed as barred by limitation on 8.9.1975, the revision filed by the appellant and Budhdan was allowed vide order dated 8.1.1979 by holding that the Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to pass the order of mutation and his order was without jurisdiction. A finding that the Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to entertain other parties who are interested in the lis and, therefore, it suffers from breach of principles of natural justice. It may also be noticed that during the pendency of revision petition before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue directed the Tehsildar to produce record of the proceedings, which were not produced on the ground that it has been lost and not traceable. (19). The order of the Board of Revenue was challenged by Shyama alone by way of writ petition No. 157/79. (20). The learned Single Judge vide judgment under appeal, found that Section 135(2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 has designated Tehsildar as the authority concerned who could exercise power to make orders for altering the entries in the land records. Under Section 135 he cannot be denuded of his authority conferred by statute by a notification issued by a delegate. It could only confer concurrent jurisdiction on the authority notified under Section 260(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Under Section 135 he cannot be denuded of his authority conferred by statute by a notification issued by a delegate. It could only confer concurrent jurisdiction on the authority notified under Section 260(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. For coming to this conclusion, the learned Single Judge has relied on a decision of this Court in Kalyan & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue (1), which is also a Single Bench judgment. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that since the descendants of Govinddan constitutes a large group, it was not possible to give individual copies to all of them and a general notice was issued by the Tehsildar before holding the enquiry was sufficient so as not to result in breach of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue was set aside. (21). The second aspect of the matter, which is to be noticed is relevant provision of the statutes, notifications which have come into existence from time to time since the inception of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, more particularly in the scheme of change in land records and conferment of authority on an officer other than the one named by the statute to discharge the functions assigned to the persons named in the statute. (22). Chapter VII of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as `the Act of 1956) deals with survey and record operations and these are to be carried out by Land Record Officers, whether appointed permanently or additionally as per the provisions of Section 106, 107 and 108. Director of the Land Records under Section 109 is to be the Incharge of these operations under Sections 106 and 107. It is during the course of survey and record operations that the dispute concerning boundaries is to be decided by Land Records Officer under Section 111 and the record is also to be prepared by the Land Records Officer, who is carrying out such operations. It is in this sequence, different matters are required to be decided by the Land Records Officer under Section 115, 116, 117, 118 and 119. All undisputed entries in the record of rights are to be attested by the parties interested. It is in this sequence, different matters are required to be decided by the Land Records Officer under Section 115, 116, 117, 118 and 119. All undisputed entries in the record of rights are to be attested by the parties interested. Section 123 concerns where there is any dispute regarding the class or tenure of any tenant, the dispute is to be decided also by the Land Records Officer having regard to the principles laid down in Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 123 has since been repealed, Section 124 provides that any dispute regarding the rent or revenue payable shall not be decided by the Land Records Officer. Section 125 which has also since been deleted w.e.f. 2.11.1995, significantly provided that all disputes regarding entries in the record of rights shall be decided on the basis of possession by the Land Records Officer. Sub-section (2) of Section 125, which was in force during the relevant time reads as under : ``(2) If in the course of enquiry into a dispute under this section the Land Records Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in possession, he shall ascertain by summary enquiry who is the person best entitled to possession, and shall decide the dispute accordingly. (23). Section 126 provides that until a new map and a field book are prepared under Section 112 or until a new record of rights is framed under Section 114, the existing map, field book and record of rights, if any, shall be the map, field book and record of rights of the area concerned. (24). On closure of the survey and record operations, all pending proceedings are to be transferred to Collector by him. (25). The aforesaid provisions clearly makes out that during the survey and record operations, the jurisdiction under the Act of 1956 has been vested with the Land Records Officer and that no other officer should make summary enquiries in the matter of various disputes except the dispute regarding rent. During these operations, the Tehsildar has not been conferred with any power to deal with the matter and the complete record remain the record of rights of the area concerned until new records come into existence subject to of course to the provisions made thereafter for making necessary changes in the land records. (26). During these operations, the Tehsildar has not been conferred with any power to deal with the matter and the complete record remain the record of rights of the area concerned until new records come into existence subject to of course to the provisions made thereafter for making necessary changes in the land records. (26). It is in the aforesaid light, we may notice the provisions which concern change in the existing land records, the scheme of annual registers and periodical alterations required to be made thereunder, which forms part of the group of Sections commencing from 132 to 135 until their replacement by fresh survey and record operations. (27). Section 132 of the Act of 1956 requires the Land Records Officer to maintain the record of rights and for that purpose shall, annually or at such longer intervals as the State Government may prescribe, cause to prepare a set or an amended set, as the case may be, of the registers enumerated in Sections 114 and 120 and the registers so prepared shall be called the annual registers. Significantly sub-section (2) of Section 132 provides that the Land Records Officer shall cause to be recorded in the annual registers in the prescribed manner, all changes that may take place and any transaction that may affect any of the rights or interests recorded. (28). To recall Section 126 ordains that until new records are prepared, the existing records are the record of rights of the area concerned and Section 129 ordains Land Records Officer to make changes that take place and any transaction that may affect any right or interest may be recorded. These two provisions have a link thread that in the existing records under these summary proceedings the subsequent changes that may take place on account of certain events may only be recorded in the manner prescribed in the group of provisions contained in following Section 132. But alteration in entries made in land records on the basis of pre-existing rights since before the entry was made depends not merely and question of possession but on determination of rights of the person claiming change anteriorly. Such change is not permissible under summary proceedings but must follow as a consequence of determination of such right in regular proceedings. It is in that light that the subsequent provisions have to be considered. (29). Such change is not permissible under summary proceedings but must follow as a consequence of determination of such right in regular proceedings. It is in that light that the subsequent provisions have to be considered. (29). Section 133 provides that every person obtaining possession by succession, transfer, or otherwise of any property or other right or interest in any land or the profits thereof, which is required by this Act, or any rules made thereunder to be recorded in the annual registers, shall being the fact to the notice of the village Patwari and report it to the Tehsildar of the Tahsil in which such land is situated either direct or through the village Patwari or Land Records Inspector, within three months from the date on which he obtains such possession. In case of a minor or a person otherwise disqualified, the guardian or other person who has charge of such persons property shall make such report. Obviously this also concerns the changes that take place subsequent to existing record in the state of affairs already recorded in the land records. Section 134 provides for consequence for a person who is required to make report under Section 133 but on failing to make such a report, he is made liable to fine. (30). Section 135 prescribes the procedure to be followed on receiving the report of any changes having taken place since the last entries were made in the record. Section 135 reads as under :- ``135. Procedure on report-(1) The Tehsildar, on receiving such report or upon the facts coming otherwise to his knowledge, shall make such inquiry as appears necessary and in undisputed cases, if the succession or transfer or other acquisition appears to have taken place, shall record the same in the annual registers. If the succession or transfer or other acquisition is disputed, the Tehsildar shall, if competent under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, decide such dispute according to law and if not so competent, refer the dispute to any other officer so competent, for decision. (31). Thus, Section 135 empowers the Tehsildar with the power to make such inquiry as it appears necessary for him in the cases of undisputed changes reported to him and for arriving such satisfaction he is required to make report in the annual registers of such changes. (31). Thus, Section 135 empowers the Tehsildar with the power to make such inquiry as it appears necessary for him in the cases of undisputed changes reported to him and for arriving such satisfaction he is required to make report in the annual registers of such changes. Sub-section (2) of Section 135 is a non-specific provision in as much as it concerns deciding the disputes surrounding the changes sought by any person which have taken place subsequent to the last entries made. It requires that the Tehsildar under the Act of 1956 or any other law is competent for deciding such dispute. He may himself decide such dispute according to law and resolve the dispute in respect of succession or transfer or other acquisition matters or he may refer such dispute to other competent Tribunal who is bestowed with such jurisdiction. (32). While the statute under the aforesaid provisions have conferred such power to be exercised, it is to be discharged by the Land Records Officer during survey and record operations and Land Records Officer, Patwari and Tehsildar on certain changes in respect of any entries having taken place is brought to their notice requiring the change in the annual registers. (33). Section 136 confers upon the Land Records Officer the power to correct or cause to be corrected in the prescribed manner any clerical errors and any errors which the parties interested admit to have been made in the record of rights or register, or which a revenue officer may notice during the course of his inspection in any register. No such power can be exercised suo moto unless a notice to show cause is given to the parties. Thus, Section 136 empowers the Land Records Officer to correct clerical error and any errors which the parties interested admit to have been made, in other words admitted mistakes. It is in the aforesaid context that Section 260 is to be noticed and the notifications issued thereunder so far as relevant for the present controversy is concerned in its historical background. (34). Section 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 as originally framed reads as under :- ``260. It is in the aforesaid context that Section 260 is to be noticed and the notifications issued thereunder so far as relevant for the present controversy is concerned in its historical background. (34). Section 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 as originally framed reads as under :- ``260. Delegation- The State Government may, by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette:- (a) delegate all or any of its powers under this Act, except the power to make rules, to the Board or a Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records, (b) direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder on any officer or authority shall be performed and exercised by any other officer, or authority, specified in the notification, (c) require the Board of any other officer to perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed and conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder on the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records, or (d) authorise any authority or officer to delegate its powers under this Act, except the power to make rules, to any other authority or officer. (35). In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section 260, two notifications were issued, which are relevant for the present purposes, which have been referred to by both the counsel during the course of submissions. (36). First notification was issued on 27.10.1956, which reads as under:- ``In pursuance of clause (b) of Section 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (No. 15 of 1956), the State Government is pleased to direct that the powers of the Land Records Officer to decide disputed cases referred to in sub- section (2) of Section 135 of the said Act, should also be exercised by the Tehsildar. (37). Subsequent thereto another notification dated 11.9.1957 was issued directing that in place of Land Records Officer whose power under that sub-section have been conferred on Tehsildar by notification dated 27.10.1956 be performed by village panchayat of the village in which the land is situated. An appeal against the order of the Village Panchayat was to lie before the Collector in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act, as was provided against any order passed by Tehsildar in the matters connected with settlement of land records. (38). An appeal against the order of the Village Panchayat was to lie before the Collector in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act, as was provided against any order passed by Tehsildar in the matters connected with settlement of land records. (38). Some controversy arose about the notification dated 11.9.1957 as to whether the power conferred on any of the officers under the Revenue Department under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the Rajasthan Tenancy Act could be conferred on any officer of other departments for discharging functions in Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that resulted in amendment of Section 260 extensively and as a result of that, Section 260 was substituted in new format by Amending Act of 1962, which reads as under :- ``260. Delegation- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,- (a) delegate all or any of its powers under this Act, except the power to make rules, to the Board or the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records or a Collector, or (b) direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder or by any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder and exercised by any other lawfully appointed or constituted officer or authority specified in the notification, whether such other officer or authority shall have been appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law, or (c) require the Board or any other officer to perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed and conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder on the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records, or (d) authorise any authority or officer lawfully constituted or appointed to delegate its or his powers under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, except the power to make rules under this Act or under such other law, to any other authority or officer constituted or appointed under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law. (2) Doubts having been expressed as to the scope of the power of delegations provided for in this section as it stood before the 16th day of November, 1961, it is hereby enacted for the removal and clarification of such doubts, that, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decision of any court (civil or revenue) tribunal or other competent authority and notwithstanding any defect or omission of form, language or reference in any notifications issued by the State Government under this section previously to the said day or any rule of law or interpretation, (a) all delegations of powers and duties made by the State Government under this section before the sixteenth day of November, 1961, shall be deemed to have been lawfully and validly made in terms of sub-section (1) as hereby amended as if such amendments had then been made, and (b) all notifications delegating such powers and duties shall, until superseded, continue to be operative and to have effect according to their tenor. (39). The effect of these amendments so far as clause (b) is concerned, was to enable the State Government to direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by the Land Revenue Act or the rules made thereunder or by any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder and exercised by any other lawfully appointed or constituted officer or authority specified in the notification. (40). Thus, it enabled the State Government to appoint or constitute any other officer or as may be specified in the notification other than the one constituted under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or any other cognate law otherwise the duties assigned on the officers under the Act may be discharged by those officers or authorities so notified, notwithstanding that such officer or authority may not have been appointed or constituted under the Act of 1956 or Rules made thereunder or any other law under which such powers are to be exercised or duties are to be discharged. Simultaneously saving clause was made by way of enacting sub-section (2). Notification issued prior to 16.11.1961 with effect from the date from which Section 260 was (amended) were to continue to remain in force as having been lawfully and validly made under the amended Section 260. Simultaneously saving clause was made by way of enacting sub-section (2). Notification issued prior to 16.11.1961 with effect from the date from which Section 260 was (amended) were to continue to remain in force as having been lawfully and validly made under the amended Section 260. (41). It may be noticed before proceeding further the multi- dimentional changes in Section 260. In its original incarnation, it enabled the State Government to delegate all or any of the powers conferred upon it by the Act except the power to make rules, to the Board of Revenue or the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records. Clause (a) refers to delegation of States authority under the Act to the one or the other named in clause (a). Apparently, on delegation of the power of the State Government to be discharged by the delegate would not denude the State Government of the authority conferred on it. In other words, so far as the delegation under clause (a) of the State Government on the persons named thereunder is concerned was not to efface the State Government as the authority competent to discharge the functions or exercise the powers under the Act. (42). Clause (b) enabled the State Government to direct any officer or the authority other than the one named in the statute under any provision that any duties imposed and power conferred by this Act or Rules made thereunder are to be performed or exercised by such other officer or the authority notified. (43). Clause (c) in contrast enabled the State Government to require the Board or any other officer to perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed and conferred by this Act or the Rules made thereunder on the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records. In other words the Board of Revenue could be required to discharge the functions of the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records in addition to its own duties. (44). Lastly, it enabled the State Government to authorise any authority or officer under the Act to delegate its power under the Act except to cause to make rules to any other authority. (45). (44). Lastly, it enabled the State Government to authorise any authority or officer under the Act to delegate its power under the Act except to cause to make rules to any other authority. (45). Clause (d) also poses no difficulty that once the State Government authorises any officer or authority to delegate its power under the Act to be discharged by any other authority or officer on such delegation, it would not denude of its paramount authority to exercise the powers conferred on it by the statute. (46). The question which really arise is about the impact of clause (b) when the State Government exercises its authority to appoint any of the officer or authority to discharge functions of any authority or officer notified in the Act or any officer appointed for the time being in force would result in creating a parallel and concurrent jurisdiction to the authority named in the statute or on issuing such direction, the jurisdiction, so far to be exercised by the authority named in the statute would vest in and is required to be discharged by the authority notified to the exclusion of the one named in the statute. (47). Significantly in either of the provision the expression `delegation of authority keeping the power of the original authority intact has not been used. The question is whether this would make any difference in departure from the principles applicable to delegation of powers. (48). In the historical background to the present controversy, a Full Bench of Board of Revenue in Balu vs. Ramdeo (2), opined that after Section 260 was amended by the Act of 1962 and the two notifications referred to above had been allowed to continue in force, in respect of the land situated within the jurisdiction of the village panchayat, Tehsildar ceases to exercise jurisdiction under Section 135 in respect of affecting any changes in the annual registers and the such power vested exclusively in village panchayat. (49). It was following the said decision, the Board of Revenue had set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar on 24.8.1971. (50). However, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kalyan & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (49). It was following the said decision, the Board of Revenue had set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar on 24.8.1971. (50). However, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kalyan & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (3), had occasion to interpret clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 in the context of like notification with which we are concerned issued on 17.6.1961 conferring the statutory power of Tehsildar under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to decide the disputes as to ``rasta on village panchayat. The expression used in the said notification was `the power conferred on a Tehsildar by sub-section (1) of Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act No. 3 of 1955) of the disposing of application of the holder of land disturbed in the actual enjoyment of right of way, shall be exercised in place of Tehsildar, by the Village Panchayat of the village in which the right of way has been disturbed is situate. The court opined that the expression `In place of Tehsildar occurring in such notification is ultra vires and the Tehsildar could not have been denued of the authority conferred on it by the statute by notification issued under Section 260 (1) (b) as no such power was conferred on the State Government. The court said : ``The question which falls for determination therefore, is whether the power of Tehsildar conferred on him by Section 251, Tenancy Act to decide disputes as to rasta can be taken away by the State Government by a notification issued by it in exercise of its powers under Section 260 of the Revenue Act. If the Legislature has conferred on the State Government a power to withdraw the jurisdiction and powers of the Tehsildar under Section 251 of the Tenancy Act, there should be no difficulty in answering the question in the affirmative. But it cannot be answered in the affirmative for the simple reason that the Legislature has enacted section 260 of the Revenue Act in such a manner as to confer only a limited power on the State Government to authorise an officer or authority other than the Tehsildar under Section 251 of the Tenancy Act. But it cannot be answered in the affirmative for the simple reason that the Legislature has enacted section 260 of the Revenue Act in such a manner as to confer only a limited power on the State Government to authorise an officer or authority other than the Tehsildar under Section 251 of the Tenancy Act. No power is conferred on the State Government by Section 260 of the Revenue Act to take away the powers of the Tehsildar vested in him by Section 251 of the Tenancy Act. The effect of the notification issued by the State Government under Section 260 of the Revenue Act, in terms of the present case, therefore, is that both the Tehsildar and the Panchayat have concurrent jurisdiction to decide the disputes regarding rasta. The Tehsildar gets such power directly from the Legislature under Section 251 of the Tenancy Act. The Panchayat gets such powers by virtue of a notification issued by the State Government as a delegate of the Legislature. The delegate can validly operate within the strict limits of his powers and not beyond them. Section 260 of the Revenue Act confers a limited and delegated powers on the State Government in that it may authorise a Panchayat to exercise the powers of a Tehsildar under Section 251 of the Tenancy Act, but it does not authorise the State Government to withdraw the statutory powers of the Tehsildar under that section. For all these reasons, I must hold that the notification reproduced above is partly bad but, its bad portion is clearly serverable from the good portion. Now, if the words ``in place of Tehsildar occurring between the word ``exercised and the word ``by are deleted from the said notification, it will be rid of its vice of being ultra vires section 251 of the Tenancy Act and section 260 of the Revenue Act. (51). This judgment was relied on for reaching the same conclusion vice the notification dated 11.9.1957, which uses the same terminology in respect of power conferred on Tehsildar under Section 125, by the learned Single Judge in his judgment under appeal. (52). While the appeal was pending, the Legislature has intervened and amended Section 260 itself, as noticed hereinabove. (51). This judgment was relied on for reaching the same conclusion vice the notification dated 11.9.1957, which uses the same terminology in respect of power conferred on Tehsildar under Section 125, by the learned Single Judge in his judgment under appeal. (52). While the appeal was pending, the Legislature has intervened and amended Section 260 itself, as noticed hereinabove. The unamended clause (b) of Section 260 reads as under : ``(b) direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder or by any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder and exercised by any other lawfully appointed or constituted officer or authority specified in the notification, whether such other officer or authority shall have been appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law. (53). The Amending Act of 1989 made the following amendment in the Land Revenue Act of 1956:- Section 2 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1989 (Act No. 8 of 1989) reads as under : ``2. Amendment of section 260, Rajasthan Act No. 15 of 1956 - In clause(b) of sub-section (1) of section 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act No. 15 of 1956), for the expression ``shall be performed shall be and shall always be deemed to have been substituted. (54). Section 260(1)(b) after aforesaid amendment reads as under : 260. Delegation - (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette - (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (54). Section 260(1)(b) after aforesaid amendment reads as under : 260. Delegation - (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette - (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder or by any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder [shall, to the exclusion of such officer or authority, be performed] and exercised by any other lawfully appointed or constituted officer or authority specified in the notification, whether such other officer or authority specified in the notification, shall have been appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law, or (55). The amendment was first inserted vide Rajasthan Land Revenue Second Amendment Ordinance No. 17 of 1988. The said ordinance published after two intervening ordinances. The amendment was ultimately made by the Jaipur Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1989. The aforesaid amendments made in the parent enactment were given retrospectivity with commencement of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1958 using the expression `shall be and shall always be deemed to have been substituted. in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. (56). In the light of the above amendment, which has been given retrospective effect, the question now arises whether the actions taken by Tehsildar during the period before the Ordinance No. 8/88 was promulgated or which ultimately replaced by Amending Act No. 8/89 when the amended provisions are deemed to be in force throughout excluding the jurisdiction of Tehsildar never exercising any authority under Section 1 and inviting a village panchayat to be the sole authority to discharge the functions under Section 135 of the Act of 1956. Can be order passed by the Tehsildar on 24.8.1971 be still considered to have been passed by a authority having jurisdiction to pass such order. (57). The first that needs be noticed is the progressive change in clause (b) of Section 260, which shall unreveal the following picture. (58). Can be order passed by the Tehsildar on 24.8.1971 be still considered to have been passed by a authority having jurisdiction to pass such order. (57). The first that needs be noticed is the progressive change in clause (b) of Section 260, which shall unreveal the following picture. (58). In the first instance, Section 260(b), when the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was enacted reads as under : ``260(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder or by any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be performed and exercised by any other lawfully appointed or constituted officer or authority specified in the notification, whether such other officer or authority shall have been appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law, or (59) It enabled the State Government to direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the rules made thereunder on any officer or authority shall be performed and exercised by any other officer or authority specified in the notification. This provision did not have any operation beyond the operative field of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It did not concerned with discharge of duties and exercise of powers by Acts or Rules other than the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Thus there was no room for directing any person other than the one appointed under the Act of 1956 or Rules framed thereunder. It is reasonable to infer that the choice of choosing an officer to whom the directions under clause (b) under Section 260 could be issued is limited to any other officer or authority appointed or constituted under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to discharge any duties imposed or exercise powers conferred under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the Rules made thereunder. (60). (60). Before the amendment of 1962, which substituted whole of the Section, a notification was issued firstly directing the Tehsildar to discharge the duties and powers of Land Records Officer as provided under Section 125 and thereafter directions were issued that powers of Land Records Officer which are required be performed by Tehsildar under the notification dated 27.10.1956 under Section 135 shall be discharged by the village panchayat, in place of Tehsildar. (61). This led to controversy whether the village panchayat could be conferred authority to discharge duties or exercise the powers of any officer or the authority required to perform such duties or exercise such powers under the Land Revenue Act, whose appointments have also been made under the Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder. (62). By the Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1962, Section 260 was substituted in its entirity. The amended Section 260 (1) (b) read as under : ``260. Delegation- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,- (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder or by any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder and exercised by any other lawfully - appointed or constituted officer or authority specified in the notification, whether such other officer or authority shall have been appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law, or (63). A close reading of clause (b) of Section 260, as came into force with the amendment of 1962 reveals the following feature. (a) It refers to two kinds of duties or powers : (i) the duties imposed and power conferred by the Land Revenue Act or the Rules made thereunder to it; and (ii) to any duties imposed or powers conferred under any other law or the Rules framed under such other law. (a) It refers to two kinds of duties or powers : (i) the duties imposed and power conferred by the Land Revenue Act or the Rules made thereunder to it; and (ii) to any duties imposed or powers conferred under any other law or the Rules framed under such other law. (b) The second ingredient of the clause (b) is that in either case the principal officer or authority who is required to discharge duties or exercise power, under the respective law is one, appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or Rules framed thereunder. In case the duty imposed in law is not assigned to an officer or authority appointed under Land Revenue Act, the provision does not apply. Nor does Section 260 (1) (b) can be invoked if duties imposed or power conferred under the Land Revenue Act were to be exercised by an authority or officer appointed under any other law. (c) In the aforesaid cases as it enabled the State Government to direct that (i) the duties imposed or the powers conferred upon an officer or authority appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder may be discharged by any other authority or officer. (d) Lastly it provided to whom such direction can be issued. It has two options (i) either to appoint officer or authority who may have been appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder or so appointed under the Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder or, (ii) who may have been appointed or constituted under such other law under which the duties are imposed or powers are conferred on the officer appointed or authority constituted under the Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder. (64). This limits to choice of selecting the officer or authority to whom direction can be issued under Section 260(1)(b). (65). (64). This limits to choice of selecting the officer or authority to whom direction can be issued under Section 260(1)(b). (65). The condition which emerges from a close reading of clause (b) is that such other officer or authority to whom direction could be issued under Section 260(1) (b) must either be (1) appointed or constituted under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder or (2) appointed or constituted under such other law or the Rules framed thereunder, in respect of which he is required to perform such duties or exercise such powers which under such law is required to be performed or exercised by an officer or authority appointed or constituted under the Act of 1956. (66). Section 260 (1) (b) did not envisage at any stage nor it does envisage now to introduce an alien authority/officer appointed or constituted under any unconnected statute with the statute under which he has to discharge duties or exercise power. Only such officer or authority other than the primary officer or authority named in the statute could be assigned duty to be performed or powers to be exercised either under the Land Revenue Act or such other Act, under which duties are to be performed or powers are to be exercised by the officer appointed or authority constituted under the Land Revenue Act. (67). The further amendment which has been brought about first by Ordinance No. 81 of 1988 later on vide the Amending Act, 1989, after two intervening ordinances with which we are concerned, has been brought to set at rest the situation, which has emerged from the two decisions of this Court referred to above, of which one is under appeal. It has been made clear that while notifying any authority other than the one appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or the Rules, to discharge his functions under the Land Revenue Act or under any other law under which primary authority named was one from the Land. Revenue Act then the State Government can also direct that the other authority shall perform duties or exercise power to the exclusion of original authority named in the respective Acts in respect of law under which he is required to act or discharge duties and exercise powers. (68). Revenue Act then the State Government can also direct that the other authority shall perform duties or exercise power to the exclusion of original authority named in the respective Acts in respect of law under which he is required to act or discharge duties and exercise powers. (68). In our opinion the provisions analysed closely not raise a question of delegation of the legislative authority so as to require examination of the question whether it amounts to abdication of the essential legislative function in favour of a delegate, as appears to have been understood by the parties while addressing the convention as well as appears to be foundation of the two judgments referred to above. Clause (b) of Section 260(1) also does not at all deal with delegations of powers or duties of one authority or other. It is part of the scheme for appointing or setting up machinery for the implementation of the provisions of the Statute, which is ordinarily left to the domain of the State as a part of its executive function to provide for machinery to implement the laws made by it. (69). Another aspect which appears not to have been considered that instead of expressing at each place where the power has been conferred on Tehsildar or the Land Records Officer or for that matter on any officer or authority under the Land Revenue Act, a general provision has been made in the form of clause (b) of Section 260, the purpose is effectuated indicating that any specified function may be discharged either by the authority or the officer as designated in the Land Revenue Act or other law to perform it or by an officer or authority. Section 260(1)(b) in our opinion cannot be read independently in isolation, but has to be read with each such provision where the Land Revenue Act or other enactment imposes a duty to be performed or a power to be exercised by any officer or authority, who has been appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act, as giving it an option to the State Government, making it legislative policy, that such power is to be exercised or duties is to be performed under any provision either by the officer named therein or by any other officer appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or appointed or constituted under the Act in respect of which function is to be exercised by such officer or authority. (70). To put in by way of illustration if Section 135 of the Land Revenue Act is read with general provision contained in clause (b) of Section 260 (1), it would have the effect of workability of Section 135 in the following manner, namely, the `Tehsildar or such other officer or authority appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or Rules framed thereunder, as may be directed by the State Government, shall make such enquiry as it appears necessary in undisputed cases. . . . . . .shall record them in the annual register or it will read like this if the succession or transfer or acquisition is disputed, the Tehsildar or any other officer or authority constituted under the Act as directed by the State Government under Section 260(1) (b) if competent under the Act or any other law for the time being in force decide such dispute according to law and if not so competent refer the dispute to any other officer so competent for decision. (71). If Section 135 and Section 260 are thus read together, it does not result in creating a concurrent jurisdiction but results in bringing into existence an alternative jurisdiction. The function under Section 135 is to be performed either by the Tehsildar or any other officer or authority appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act as may be directed by the State Government by specifying in the notification. This applies to every other provision also wherever a duty is imposed or power is conferred under such provision on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under that Act. (72). This applies to every other provision also wherever a duty is imposed or power is conferred under such provision on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under that Act. (72). Clause (b) originally enacted conferred this power on the State to direct any other officer or authority to discharge the functions of the officer named in a particular provision or the Land Revenue Act. This provision was confined to operate within the provisions of Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder, hence directing any officer or authority, outside the Land Revenue Act or Rules did not arise. (73). By amending clause (b) in 1962, the enabling power was extended to direct other officer or authority in his place, who may have been appointed under the Land Revenue Act or Rules made under it, or under any other law, to discharge their functions. The power which was originally confined to assign the discharge of duties or exercise of power exercisable under the Land Revenue Act, has been extended to the discharge of duties or exercise of power conferred by other Acts provided such duties are required to be discharged or powers are required to be exercised by an officer appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed under it. But in doing so the choice was confined to such other officer or authority, who should either be an officer appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act, whose officer or authority is originally required to discharge such function, or other such officer or authority must be the officer appointed or authority constituted under the other law under which the duties are to be discharged or the power is to be exercised. This choice does not travel beyond ensuring that the statutory duties or powers are discharged or exercised by such officer or authority, who are familiar and knowledgeable about the provisions of law to be enforced and implemented by him. The officer appointed or the authority constituted under the Land Revenue Act is expected to be the person informed with the functioning of the Land Revenue Act as well as of discharging the duties or exercise of power imposed under other law under which officers of Land Revenue Act have been so nominated. The officer appointed or the authority constituted under the Land Revenue Act is expected to be the person informed with the functioning of the Land Revenue Act as well as of discharging the duties or exercise of power imposed under other law under which officers of Land Revenue Act have been so nominated. Simultaneously the authority constituted or the officer appointed under such other law, which has conferred such duties or powers to be discharged or exercisable by the officers appointed under the Land Revenue Act, can also be asked to be performed by the officers appointed or the authority constituted under the law in respect of which the powers are to be exercised or duties are to be discharged ensuring that exercise of power or discharge of duty will be by such officer or authority who had the knowledge of functioning of the Statute under which they have been so appointed or constituted. (74). This, construction of clause (b) of Section 260 (1) raises no decotomy nor it results in excessive delegation of power nor in designating the authority appointed under the Statute of an alien field. In fact, the power has been conferred to smoothen the functioning of the different enactments under which the authority has been conferred on the officers appointed under the Land Revenue Act or authority constituted under the Land Revenue Act to discharge the duties and exercise powers conferred under that other law. (75). This also ensures that there will be no room for concurrent jurisdiction between the two authorities but either the authority named in the Statute, which is the necessary authority appointed under the Land Revenue Act shall discharge the function, any other officer or authority under the Land Revenue Act will discharge such functions in his place or any authority appointed under the Act in respect of which the powers are to be exercised or the duties are to be discharged but no foreign element is brought into the arena for creating a alien forum. (76). The two decisions projected the view to be a case of delegation, which normally does not result in denuding the original authority of its power, and has held that there cannot be any exclusion of the authority named in the Statute as it would be amounting to arrogate legislative function by issuing executive notification and that would result in amending the provision of the Act. (77). In our opinion the legislative policy from the very beginning was not to create a concurrent jurisdiction under Land Revenue Act but was to enable the State Government to provide alternative authority to discharge those very functions whether appointed under the Land Revenue Act in the first instance or after amendment made in 1962. After the amendment, the authority was also given to the State Government to see that the duties imposed and powers conferred by other Statutes are discharged either by the authorities named in such Statute who are appointed under the Land Revenue Act or the State Government may direct the authorities constituted or officer appointed under such other Act to discharge those duties or exercise such powers as are envisaged under such other law. The amendment, which has been brought into existence firstly by the Ordinance of 1988 and later on by the Amending Act, 1989, makes this position only clear and does no more. (78). The appellant cannot take any assistance from sub-section (2) of Section 260, which was inserted vide Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1962. (79). Sub-section (2) of Section 260 has been enacted to remove the doubts about power and scope of delegation and clarify, and declare that previous notification issued under unamended Section 260(1) (b) to be lawfully and validly made in terms of sub- section (1) as hereby amended. With this declaration, the notification issued earlier to the amendment were allowed to operate in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 260. Thus, it clearly shows that only such notification, which may come within the purview of Section 260 as it stood earlier to amendment, but had to be treated as if issued in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 260, if the existing notification fell within the purview of amended Section 260(1), the same shall be deemed to have been validly issued and confined in terms thereof, notwithstanding any judgment, order or decision. But it did not preclude an enquiry into scope and ambit of amended provision and whether the existing notification fell within its province so that it can be said that the notification is in terms of Section 260(1). But it did not preclude an enquiry into scope and ambit of amended provision and whether the existing notification fell within its province so that it can be said that the notification is in terms of Section 260(1). The declaration under Section 260(2) is only and can only be to the extent that notifications issued earlier to amendment may be deemed to have been issued under the amended provision, that yardstick of its validity becomes the amended Section 260(1) and not the unamended provision of Section 260, which were in force when such notifications were issued. The consideration of question whether such notification still fell within the province of amended provision could not have been prevented and has not been prevented from the pail of judicial review. (80). So far as Section 3(2) of the Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1989 is concerned, it does not appear to be very happily worded to give out the object behind it. (81). The amendment in Section 260(1) (b) was firstly introduced vide Ordinance No. 5/1988, vide notification dated 1.9.1988 published also on 1.9.1988. With the introduction of amendment, it did not carry any saving clause in respect of fall-out of retrospective conferment of power relating to issuing directions by the State Government to discharge the duties and exercise power to any officer or authority other than the one named in the parent Act, whether Land Revenue Act, 1960 or other Act under which such officer or authority appointed or constituted under Land Revenue Act, 1960 have been named as an authority to discharge such functions, to the exclusion of the primary authority originally named by legislation. Therefore, if any action is taken by the authority or officer, who is retrospectively excluded from exercise of jurisdiction, were not saved, the same will to be invalidated. That is seldom the purpose of validating clause. Validating is needed for something, which otherwise would be invalid. (82). Be that as it may, subsequent thereto before the Ordinance could be made part of the legislative enactment, its period expired. Hence, another Ordinance Rajasthan Land Revenue (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1988 (No. 17/88) was promulgated vide notification dated 8.11.1988 published on the same date, had its Section 3(2) read as under as a consequence of repeal of Ordinance No. 8/88 w.e.f. 1.9.1988. Hence, another Ordinance Rajasthan Land Revenue (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1988 (No. 17/88) was promulgated vide notification dated 8.11.1988 published on the same date, had its Section 3(2) read as under as a consequence of repeal of Ordinance No. 8/88 w.e.f. 1.9.1988. ``Section 3(2)-Notwithstanding shall repeal all things done, actions taken or orders made under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 as amended by the aforesaid Ordinance (Ordinance No. 8/98) shall be deemed to have been done, taken or made under the said Act as amended by this Ordinance. (83). Second Amended Ordinance was replaced by the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, 1989 (Ordinance No. 5/89) vide notification dated 22.2.1989, also to be effective with effect from 1.9.1988, while repealing Ordinance No. 17/88 vide sub- section (1) of Section 3, sub-section (2) was enacted in the same manner as quoted above. (84). The process was followed when Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1989 was enacted repealing the Ordinance by enacting Section 3(2) in the like terms. (85). If the effect was to validate the actions taken by an authority directed under amended provision of Section 260(1) (b) by treating it to have been passed under the amended provision, perhaps it was not needed as that was to be ordinary consequence of retrospective amendment. The amending Statutes whether Ordinance or Act, do not have any validating provision, which may otherwise be also valid. (86). If the resultant position of amendment was to render invalid any action taken or order made by an officer or authority named in the Legislature, which he might have taken or made, inspite of exclusion of jurisdiction taking effect retrospectively, the aforesaid provision in Ordinance No. 17/88 or 5/89 or Act of 1989 does not save the same from such invalidity in order to save the action taken or orders made since issuance of any valid notification in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 30 as amended upto date. (87). This Court neither in the case of Kalyan Singh vs. Board of Revenue (supra), nor in the judgment under appeal has held that power could not be conferred on other authority to discharge any of the functions under the Act but has said that the Tehsildar, the primary authority named by Legislature could not be excluded from the exercise of power or discharge of duties conferred on him under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. (88). (88). If that were so, the occasion for validating previous actions taken by the officer or authority directed under Section 30(1)(b) would not arise by resorting to validating provisions. (89). However, the view which has been taken of the provision in its progressive journey of amendments as appears to be clear from the language of Section 260(1) (b) direction under it cannot be issued at all to any officer or authority other than the one appointed or constituted under the Act in respect of which he is directed to discharge duties or exercise power. When such other authority so appointed or constituted under the Act in respect of which he is directed to discharge the duties or to exercise power conferred under the relevant enactment, it is to the exclusion of the authority only finally named in the legislation. (90). The principle was accepted by the Honble Supreme Court in B. Krishna Bhat vs. State of Karnataka & Others (4), that the case of excessive delegation does not arise, where the authority under one Act is required to discharge function under another Act, in case the authority under the former is otherwise required to be conversent with the provisions of such Act in discharging its own functions. (91). The question has been raised in respect of delegation of taxation power to Banglore Development Authority, which was set up under the Banglore Development Authority Act, 1976. The Banglore Development Authority was authorised to levy and collect taxes on land and buildings imposed under Municipal Corporation Act. A Single Judge of Karnataka High Court held that under the Banglore Development Authority Act, Banglore Development Authority had no inherent power to assess, impose and recover taxes, cess and fees other than the betterment tax. (92). Repelling the contention, the Court said that the delegation in question has been made to a statutory body which is entrusted with the duty of development of the city of Banglore and the areas adjacent thereto. The process of development is statutorily controlled and in the said process, certain developmental activities under Sections 29 and 30 of forming layout, maintaining roads, bridges, sewers etc., are also contemplated. Therefore, Banglore Development Authority as such cannot be treated as a stranger for the purpose of being delegated the authority to levy property tax on property which is situated within its jurisdiction. Therefore, Banglore Development Authority as such cannot be treated as a stranger for the purpose of being delegated the authority to levy property tax on property which is situated within its jurisdiction. These levies and collections are not left to the arbitrary wisdom/discretion of the delegated authority but are governed by the procedure to be adopted under the Municipal Corporation Act which itself has provided an elaborate machinery for determing such levy and collection thereof. Therefore, this delegation is neither beyond the scope of the legislative power nor is in excess of the same. (93). The aforesaid judgment lays down the principles that where the duties imposed or power exercisable under one Act are conferred on an authority appointed or constituted under another Act, it is not necessarily beyond the scope of the legislative power nor can necessarily be considered in excess of the power but it has to be viewed in the light where such delegation is made to an authority, which cannot be considered stranger to the scheme of principal statute for the purpose of being delegated such authority. (94). Section 260 (1) (b) also has to be read in the light that authority to whom directions are issued to discharge functions under any law is not directed to such authority or officer constituted or appointed who is total stranger to functioning of the law, for the implementation of which direction is made to some other officer or authority than the primary authority named in the law itself. (95). We may examine the scheme of Section 260(1) (b) in the above context. The enabling power under Section 260 (1) (b) relates to discharge of duties or power under the Land Revenue Act, 1956 or Rules framed thereunder, or discharge of duties or exercise of power under any other law for the time being in force when discharge of such duties or exercise of such power is required to be by any officer appointed or authority constituted under the Land Revenue Act, 1956 or Rules framed thereunder. In other words, primary officer or authority entrusted with the task to carry out any function whether under the Land Revenue Act or any other law for the time being in force must be one appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or Rules framed thereunder. (96). In other words, primary officer or authority entrusted with the task to carry out any function whether under the Land Revenue Act or any other law for the time being in force must be one appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or Rules framed thereunder. (96). In the aforesaid circumstances, only the State Government can direct `that any other officer or authority, then the one named in either of the Statute, as the case may be, may discharge duties or exercise power under the Land Revenue Act or Rules framed thereunder, or under any other law for the time being in force; and lastly, the direction may be issued to only such officer or authority who is either appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or Rules framed thereunder, or appointed or constituted under the other law. The reference to the other law at both places necessarily follows that the officer or authority to whom direction can be issued must either be appointed or constituted under Land Revenue Act, under which originally the officer or authority is named to discharge functions or he should be one under law in respect of which he is required to discharge his functions. (97). This is so because authorities under the Land Revenue Act are supposed to know the law which they are required to implement and enforce, and the authority appointed under the other law in respect of which they are required to discharge duties under the directions of the State Government are also presumed to know the law under which such officer is appointed or constituted. (98). To illustrate, if any provision under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, a Tehsildar is required to discharge certain duty, the State Government can direct that such duty may be exercised by any other officer appointed under the Land Revenue Act under which Tehsildar is appointed, or to any other officer or authority appointed under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, under which such directed authority is required to discharge function. An officer of Land Revenue Department is presumed to know the functions which any other officer appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is required to discharge. An officer appointed under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act is presumed to know the aim or object of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act under which it owes its existence. An officer of Land Revenue Department is presumed to know the functions which any other officer appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is required to discharge. An officer appointed under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act is presumed to know the aim or object of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act under which it owes its existence. But in either case, an officer or authority appointed or constituted under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act cannot be directed to discharge functions of the Tehsildar which were required to be discharged either under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. (99). The upshot of the discussions is that, if the duties imposed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder or the powers conferred under it and is required to be discharged by the officer `(A) who has been appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder, such duties can be discharged or powers can be exercised by any other officer to the exclusion of the one named in the Statute under the directions of the State; provided such other officer is also appointed or authority constituted under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or Rules framed thereunder. If such power is conferred or the duty is imposed on any officer appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or under any Rules framed thereunder by the provisions of some other enactments, in such cases, in exercise of powers conferred under clause (b), the State Government can assign the duty or power on any other officer or authority who may have either been appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or who may have been appointed or constituted under such other law in respect of which he is directed to discharge duties or exercise power. (100). In the present case the duty to make alteration in the entires and exercise power in respect thereof while deciding the application under Section 133 is conferred on Tehsildar under Section 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. This power can be conferred on any other officer or authority by issuing directions under Section 260(1)(b) to any other authority or officer appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or provision made thereunder only. No authority or officer appointed under any other Act can be required to discharge functions under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. This power can be conferred on any other officer or authority by issuing directions under Section 260(1)(b) to any other authority or officer appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or provision made thereunder only. No authority or officer appointed under any other Act can be required to discharge functions under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. On the other hand if the Rajasthan Panchayat Act confers certain power or imposes certain duties to be discharged by the Tehsildar who is an officer appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, then in exercise of power conferred under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 260, the State Government can, to the exclusion of Tehsildar direct any other officer or authority to discharge such duties or exercise such power under the Panchayat Act who may either have been appointed or constituted under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder; or who may have been appointed or constituted under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. But no officer appointed or authority, constituted under any third enactment can be conferred with power to discharge duties or exercise power under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. (101). In view thereof, we are of the opinion that the Tehsildar was never denuded of his authority to make appropriate orders falling within his jurisdiction under Section 135 and the conferment of power to exercise jurisdiction under Section 135 on the Panchayat in exercise of power under clause (b) of Section 260 (1) cannot be sustained even after amendment. Therefore, the order under challenge, passed by the Tehsildar which has been set aside by the Board of Revenue but has been restored by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be without jurisdiction merely on the basis of the amendment on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant or on the basis of earlier notifications. (102). We are also of the view that the provisions of clause (b) of Section 260 (1) by itself did not envisage at any stage creation of concurrent jurisdictions but has envisaged only discharge of duties or exercise of powers either by the person named under the Act or by the person directed under clause (b) of Section 260 (1) provided the authority or the officer has been constituted under the law in respect of which he is to discharge duties or exercise power. (103). (103). The other aspects of the matter which invite attention is whether the application made by Shyama and Pusa could have been dealt with by the Tehsildar under Section 135 and decide the question arising thereunder. (104). The provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act still concerning the amendments, preparation and maintenance of the land records and making alterations in the land records consists of two stages. The first part of the subject relating to making of entires or mutation in the land record relates to and concerns is as a part of survey and record operations. The provisions concerning the preparation of the record as a result of survey and making alterations therein until the survey and record operations are completed are governed by the set of provisions contained in Sections 106 to 127 of which Section 122 to 127 are assigned to making of entries in land records during the survey and record operations. Once the survey and record operations are complete and the entries are made by disposing of all objections or where the objections are not so disposed of but the applications as to objections made in regard to the entries to be made in the land records or application for making certain changes in the land records which remain pending, are governed by those provisions. (105). The application made by the applicants Shyam and Pusa out of which concurrent proceedings have arisen does not fall within this category. (106). However, once the survey and record operations are complete and the entries are made, it carries with it a presumption of being true, until contrary is proved under Section 140. The corrections in that record can be made only in the manner provided under Section 128 to 141, which inter alia requires maintenance of annual registers and making alterations in the annual registers on account of changes which have occasioned on subsequent happening of certain subsequent events. (107). Broadly speaking, the jurisdiction that is exercised for making entries in the land records and deciding the objections to making of such other entries has been vested with the Land Records Officer. Section 113 provides for preparation of record of rights, which follows the survey or re-survey of the area, record operations, survey of boundaries, decision of disputes as to the boundaries, preparation of map and field-book of the area. Section 113 provides for preparation of record of rights, which follows the survey or re-survey of the area, record operations, survey of boundaries, decision of disputes as to the boundaries, preparation of map and field-book of the area. Under Section 113, a Land Records Officer is required to frame for each village or a portion of village comprised therein, a record of rights in respect of every local area under survey and record operations. Section 114 provides the contents of record of rights. Section 115 envisages inviting claims to lands appearing to have no owner during survey and record operations and on making of such application by any person raising claim to such lands, the Land Records Officer is to decide it summarily after making such enquiry as it deems necessary, before making entries in the record of rights. Like provision has been made for the procedure to be followed in respect of unclaimed land used for common purposes or when limited rights over the land under survey is established. The power of Land Records Officer also include ascertainment and determination of the extent of land as khudkhast and in the case of inhabitated village, ascertainment and determination of the area reserved for the residence of the inhabitants thereof or for purposes ancillary thereto and which is deemed to be abadi of such village. (108). After completing all these survey and record operations when entries are to be made in the record of rights under Section 122, all undisputed entries so made are required to be attested by the parties interested. (109). Where there arises any dispute about such entries, which are proposed to be made in the record of rights during the course of survey or record operations, which may relate to the rent or revenue payable or a dispute regarding the class or tenure of any tenant or other disputes regarding entries in the record of rights, they are to be determined by the Land Records Officer, as provided under Sections 123, 124 and 125 of the Act of 1956. (110). We may notice that Sections 123 and 125 have since been omitted vide Rajasthan Land Revenue Second Amendment Act No. 29 of 1995. (111). (110). We may notice that Sections 123 and 125 have since been omitted vide Rajasthan Land Revenue Second Amendment Act No. 29 of 1995. (111). Section 126 envisages that until a new map and a field book are prepared under Section 112 or until a new record of rights is framed under Section 114, the existing map, field book and record of rights, if any, shall be the map, field book and record of rights of the area concerned. (112). Section 127 deals with close of survey and record operations, drawing a curtain on the proceedings upto that stage. It envisages that when the survey and record operations, or the record operations, as the case may be, are closed by a notification under Section 106 or Section 107, all applications and proceedings then pending before the Land Records Officer shall, if such officer has not been appointed permanently, be transferred to the Collector. (113). The present is not the case where Shyama or Pusa has raised any objection as to entries to be made in the record of rights during survey or record operations, which could not have been dealt with under the aforesaid provisions. In fact, the position, which has not been disputed before us is that during survey operations, the claim was made by descendants of Govind Dan as `Dolidar, in whose name the land originally stood but at the time of survey operations, it was found to be entered in the name of Shyama as a tenant. On the basis of statement made by Shyama himself that he is not a tenant in the land and was cultivating the land on behalf of the original holder, who supplies implement (including bullock-carts) for cultivating the land and he has no interest in the land, name of Govind Dan was entered as khatader. (114). Therefore, so far as the entries made during the survey operations are concerned, the same are based on the statement made by the applicant Shyama, on whose behalf the present proceedings were started in 1971, after almost more than a decade, when he consented the entries made in the name of Govind Dan. Therefore, it is not a case of making corrections or settling the dispute or the entries to be recorded in the record of rights during the course of survey operations or record operations. (115). Therefore, it is not a case of making corrections or settling the dispute or the entries to be recorded in the record of rights during the course of survey operations or record operations. (115). The Land Revenue Act envisages that the changes which takes place subsequent to making of record of rights during the survey operations or record operations may be reflected in the annual registeres, that are to be maintained under Section 132. (116). The effect of making entries in the record of rights during survey operations under the aforesaid provisions read with Section 140 raises presumption about its truthfulness. The necessity may arise about depicting the correct state of affairs as may come to exist subsequent to making of such entries and to achieve this object, Section 133 has been enacted, which has to be read in the context of Section 132, which follows the closure of survey and record operations and preparation of record of rights thereunder. (117). Section 133 envisages every person obtaining possession by succession, transfer or otherwise of any property or other right or interest in any land or the profits thereof, which is required by this Act or any rules made thereunder to be recorded in the annual registers shall bring the fact to the notice of the village Patwari and report to the Tehsildar of the Tehsil in which such land is situated either directly through the village Patwari or Land Records Inspector, within three months from the date on which he obtains such possession. (118). The aforesaid provision clearly postulates that these happening takes place after the entries have been made in the record of rights as a result of which the transfer of possession of the land takes place and such transfer of possession has to be reported within three months from the date on which the transferee or their successor-in-interest acquires possession of the land to the Patwari or the Tehsildar, as the case may be. Section 133 apparently is not meant for raising a claim, which is pre-existing and is traceable to exist prior to making of entry during the course of survey operations or record operations or anterior thereto, in respect of which the person in possession has an opportunity to raise objection at that time and on raising of such objections, the Land Records Officer is empowered to enquire into such objections at the time of attestation of entries. (119). There is no dispute about the facts before us that Shyama and Pusa have raised claim to their khataderi rights, as existing much before the survey and record operations took place and wanted declaration and conferment of khataderi rights in them and to make the consequential amendments in the land records on the basis of such declaration. Such an application obviously did not come within the province of Section 133 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and could not have been dealt with under Section 135 of the Act of 1952, in the manner in which it has been dealt with by the Tehsildar in the present case. Section 135 under which the entries existing in favour of Govind Dan, the ancestor of appellant Budhdan in the record of rights are alleged to have been altered by the Tehsildar does not support the exercise of jurisdiction by him thereunder to deal with the application made by respondents Shyama and Pusa. Section 135 reads as under : ``135 Procedure on report - (1) The Tehsildar, on receiving such report or upon the fact coming otherwise to his knowledge, shall make such inquiry as appears necessary and in undisputed cases, if the succession or transfer or other acquisition appears to have taken place, shall record the same in the annual registers. (2) If the succession or transfer or other acquisition is disputed, the Tehsildar shall, if competent under this Act or any other law for the time being in force decide such dispute according to law and if not so competent, refer the dispute to any other officer so competent for decision. (120). (2) If the succession or transfer or other acquisition is disputed, the Tehsildar shall, if competent under this Act or any other law for the time being in force decide such dispute according to law and if not so competent, refer the dispute to any other officer so competent for decision. (120). A perusal of Section 135 clearly postulate that it refers to furnishing of report under Section 133 in respect of transfer that has taken place as a result of succession, transfer or otherwise of the property or right or interest in the land subsequent to making of existing entries and that has necessiated amendment in the record of rights by making necessary entries in the annual register. Sub-section (2) of Section 135 confers jurisdiction to Tehsildar, if competent under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to decide dispute about such succession or transfer clearly denotes that the dispute which the Tehsildar has been authorised to decide under Section 135 must relate to subsequent acquisition of possession by the applicant of the land or any other interest in the land by way of succession, transfer or other form. The claim in the application was not founded on this premise, which could have been dealt with by the Tehsildar for the purpose of making alteration in the existing record of rights by way of a mutation proceeding, and take away the presumption of correctness of entry made in favour of Govind Dan. (121). In our opinion, the application clearly relates to a claim for accrual and declaration of khataderi rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The claim laid by the applicants Shyama and Pusa to Khataderi rights were founded on facts existing at the time of the commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Such a declaration could have been sought by taking appropriate proceedings envisaged under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for conferment, recognition or grant of khataderi right, as the case may be. The changes in record of right could have taken place according to findings in these proceedings. (122). The short-cut for seeking a declaration and conferment of khataderi by initiating proceedings under the Land Revenue Act for mutation by bye-passing the procedure provided under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not permissible in law. (123). The changes in record of right could have taken place according to findings in these proceedings. (122). The short-cut for seeking a declaration and conferment of khataderi by initiating proceedings under the Land Revenue Act for mutation by bye-passing the procedure provided under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not permissible in law. (123). It is not the case of the respondents that any declaration was made or khataderi rights were conferred by a competent officer under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by having resort to the procedure meant for such declaration or conferment under the Tenancy Act and the entries in regard to that maintained under the Land Revenue Act were required to be altered to accord with such findings. (124). In view of our aforesaid discussion, the conclusion is irresistable that dealing with the application made by Shyama and Pusa by Tehsildar under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act as an application for making changes in the record of rights by mutation was without jurisdiction and could not result in altering the entries made in the record of rights during the survey and record operations, which carried with it the presumption of it being true. The action of the Tehsildar by having resort of Section 135 for making such alterations results in tempering with the rights of the person and his successors-in- interest whose name has been entered in the record of rights, causing serious prejudice and jeopardy to such person because the entries made in the record of rights carry with it the presumption of being true and it is for the person who claims otherwise then what is depicted under the record of rights to prove to the contrary for determining his rights and get the entries changed. (125). It is true to say that mutation proceedings are not for determining the rights of the parties but are susceptible to change to the extent as provided under the Act. (125). It is true to say that mutation proceedings are not for determining the rights of the parties but are susceptible to change to the extent as provided under the Act. Since the entries have been made in the record of rights at the time of survey or settlement proceedings on admission of the applicant-respondent petitioner Shyama, it was not open for Shyama to have sought alteration in the entries by making an application under Section 133 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and secure the amendment in the annual register and indirectly get a declaration of khataderi rights in their favour, by altering the existing presumption about entries depicting true state of affairs under Section 140 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. This would result in throwing out the person who has been shown as original holder of the land in the record of rights by altering his position to his detriment because the presumption under Section 140 will also change in favour of person whose name has been mutated in place of original holder. If such impugned entries are allowed to stand, it shall make the party, who has been affected by the change in the entries in the land record by losing a presumption in his favour under Section 140, and shall be driven to take recourse to substantive remedies and that is contrary to what precisely has been sought to be protected by Section 140 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. (126). In our opinion, once the entries are made during the survey and record operations on the basis of admission made by the person who had the opportunity to object it, if he subsequently wants to seek alteration in such entries by asserting the title in himself, contrary to admission made by him earlier, the only course left open to him is to file a suit/application for declaration of his title and claim alteration in the record of rights on the basis of the findings reached in that proceedings, which is governed by the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and not by the Raj. Land Revenue Act. (127). Land Revenue Act. (127). In the facts and circumstances of the case, though we agree with the learned Single Judge but for the reasons stated above, which are different from the reasons, which prevailed with the learned Single Judge that the Tehsildar retains jurisdiction to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act notwithstanding amendment made under Section 260 (1) (b), not because the State Government could not have been conferred with the authority to appoint a person other than Tehsildar to discharge the functions of Tehsildar assigned under the Land Revenue Act exclusively but because of a correct reading of Section 260 (1) (b) such power can be conferred exclusively only to any other officer or authority appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and not to any other officer or authority appointed under different Act, as the power which was sought to be exercised by such officer was under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act only and not under the Village Panchayat Act. But in the facts of the present case we find that application filed by Shyama and Pusa fell outside the purview of Section 135 and entries in the record of rights could not have been altered by Tehsildar in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 135. (128). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent it has upheld the validity of the order passed by the Tehsildar altering the entries made in the record of rights on an application moved by Shyama and Pusa, which was incompetent and not maintainable under Section 135 and, therefore, the Tehsildar could not have entertained the said application and make alteration in land records by way of mutation under Section 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. (129). Before parting with the appeal, firstly we may notice here that, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents about the locus standi of the present appellant to maintain this appeal and to challenge the order of the Board of Revenue or the enteries made by the Tehsildar on an application moved by Shyama and Pusa for altering the entries made in the record of rights. (130). (130). In the background of this case noticed above, it is no more in dispute that the land in question was originally claimed to be held by Govind Dan as `Dolidar, who died long back before this dispute had arisen and the land was in fact inherited and managed by his descendants, who are large in number. The appellant Budhdan and the revisionist-petitioner before the Board of Revenue is one of the descendants of Govind Dan. It cannot be said that he has no interest to sustain the entries of the land in question in the name of his ancestor Govind Dan as `Dolidar and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has no locus standi to maintain the lis. The fact that the other descendants have also resorted to another remedy, which failed not on merits but because of the procedural law of limitation the appeal being barred by time, the said dismissal cannot come in the way of the present appellant and other descendant in persuing the remedy independently in a different forum, which did not suffer from the bar of limitation. In fact, the descendant whose appeal has been dismissed as barred by time was not precluded from perusing any other remedy which they could avail to seek adjudication on merit. The locus of Budhdan is the same as that of those who had filed appeal. The preliminary objection is, therefore, over- ruled. (131). Another aspect of the matter, about which there is no dispute before us, and about which it has been candidly admitted by Mr. Mehta, appearing for the appellant, that while the appellant claims restoration of the entries made by the competent officer during survey and record operations, part of the land is in actual physical possession of Shyama and Pusa and, therefore, the parties must be left to seek their appropriate remedies under the provision of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. If the appellants want to evict the respondents from the land in question on the basis of their title, they must have recourse to the remedies, as are available to them with liberty to the respondents to raise their objection including objection on the ground of limitation for sustaining such remedy. If the appellants want to evict the respondents from the land in question on the basis of their title, they must have recourse to the remedies, as are available to them with liberty to the respondents to raise their objection including objection on the ground of limitation for sustaining such remedy. Likewise, if the respondents wants to claim a declaration of his title in the land, he may pursue his remedy by way of filing a suit for such declaration and conferment of khataderi rights under the relevant provisions of law with like liberty in favour of the present appellants to contest the claim. (132). SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS : 1. Under Section 260 (1) (b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the State Government can direct an officer other than the officer required to discharge duties imposed under the Land Revenue Act or exercise powers conferred under the Land Revenue Act and the Rules framed thereunder to any other authority exclusively. However, such other authority, if required to discharge the functions or exercise powers under the Land Revenue Act, must also be the authority appointed under the Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder. 2. Where the officer appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or the Rules framed thereunder is required to discharge duties imposed or to exercise power conferred under any other law for the time being in force, then also the State Government can direct that such duty imposed or the power conferred to be discharged or exercised by any other authority other than the one originally named in the Statute exclusively. However, such other authority or officer to whom directions can be issued under Section 260 (1) (b) must either also be an officer appointed or authority constituted under the Land Revenue Act or Rules framed thereunder; or under such other law in respect of which he is required to discharge duties imposed or exercise powers conferred under such other Act. 3. 3. The State Government is not empowered under Section 260 (1) (b) to direct any authority or officer to discharge functions or exercise powers which are otherwise required to be discharged or exercised by an officer or the authority appointed under the Land Revenue Act to any other officer who is neither appointed or constituted under the Land Revenue Act or who has not been appointed or constituted under the Act in respect of which he is required to discharge duties. In other words, a person from a totally strange field cannot be directed to discharge the functions conferred on an officer or the authority either under the Land Revenue Act or under an Act in respect of which he is required to discharge duties. 4. Consequently, the directions raised to village panchayat to discharge functions of Tehsildar under the Land Revenue Act is not in accordance with terms of Section 260 (1) (b) as amended and, therefore, notification relied upon by the appellants does not exclude the jurisdiction of Tehsildar, if he otherwise has such jurisdiction in the subject matter. 5. The jurisdiction under Section 135 extends only to the extend of making alterations in respect of possession of the land which has been acquired after the entries were made in the last settlement operations in the record of rights, either by way of succession, transfer or in any other manner. 6. The provisions of Section 133 to 135 cannot be invoked to make alterations in the land records by referring to a pre- existing right, which has not arisen after the entries was recorded so as to alter the presumption arrising in respect of existing entries about their being true. 7. If any alteration is required to be made in the entries made in the record of rights on the basis of right claimed to be pre-existing and not acquired thereafter, can only be done by seeking a declaration of right claimed in respect of the land in question by having recourse to appropriate proceedings under law under which such right is claimed, which in the present case is Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the entries can be altered only as a consequence of and giving effect to the finding recorded in such lis. 8. 8. Therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by Tehsildar under Section 135 in the present case in respect of right which is claimed to exist enterior to the last entries made was incompetent. (133). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by Shyama (now represented by his legal representatives) is dismissed by holding that the proceedings taken by the Tehsildar under Section 135 of the Land Revenue Act on an applications moved by Shyama and Pusa were wholly without jurisdiction and the orders passed by the Tehsildar on those applications for making alterations in the land records are quashed. However, this is without prejudice to the rights of respective parties to seek their remedy by way of adjudication of their respective rights and reliefs, as claimed by them. (134). In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.