ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 30th January, 2012 passed in W.P.No.8488/2011. 3. With the consent of parties, the appeal is heard finally and disposed of vide this common order. 4. Naib Tahsildar, Maksudangarh vide an order dated 30/9/1994 passed in case no. 84-A19/93-94 ordered settlement of land having area seven bigha in favour of respondent No.1 on an application filed by the respondent No.1. Against the aforesaid order, the present appellant preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the order of settlement after recording a finding that notification in regard to settlement was not published by the Tahsildar properly and the finding of possession recorded by the Tahsildar was also perverse. Against the aforesaid order, a Revision was filed by the respondent No.1 before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, that Revision was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed a Revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue allowed the Revision. Against the aforesaid order, a writ petition was filed by the present appellant. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to entertain the Revision. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision in accordance with the Revenue Book Circular. He has further contended that on merits, the order of settlement passed by the Naib Tahsildar in favour of respondent No.1 is contrary to law, hence, the order is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has contended that the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to entertain the Revision and it considered the merits of the case, hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 7. In regard to jurisdiction to entertain the Revision by the Board of Revenue: As per the Revenue Book Circular, which prescribes an appeal and Revision, a Revision is maintainable against the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal before the State Government. Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code prescribes provision of Revision, which is as under: “50. Revision. Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code prescribes provision of Revision, which is as under: “50. Revision. (1) The Board of Revenue or the Commissioner or the [Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer] [xxx] may at any time on its/his motion or on the application made by any party for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it/him call for, and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by such officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit.” 8. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Board of Revenue has power to entertain the Revision against the order passed by the Revenue Officer. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in this regard is in accordance with law. 9. In regard to merits of the case: The Tahsildar recorded a finding on the basis of evidence of Patwari of the village that the respondent No.1 had been ploughing the land. The Tahsildar did not consider the Khasra Entry. The Sub Divisional Officer clearly recorded a finding in appeal that there is no mention of the fact in record of Naib Tahsildar that on which date the notification (Estahar) was published and only copy of the Khasra Entry of Samvat 2050 was produced. The appellant was not heard before the Tahsildar, who claimed that he had been in possession over the land for the last 20 –30 years. The Commissioner recorded another finding that in Khasra Panchshala of Samvat 2050 to 2054, the land was recorded as “Kadeem”, which means that it was not used for agricultural purpose. It has further been recorded a finding that both the parties claimed possession over the land. 10. As per the Revenue Book Circular, the settlement of land can be made in favour of an encroacher, however, there must be a finding that the person is an encroacher. In the present case, there is no finding to this effect. It is also clear from the record that no fine was imposed on the respondent No.1 for encroachment. Contrary to this, in Khasra Entry of Samvat 2050 to 2054, the land has been recorded as “Kadeem”. 11. In the present case, there is no finding to this effect. It is also clear from the record that no fine was imposed on the respondent No.1 for encroachment. Contrary to this, in Khasra Entry of Samvat 2050 to 2054, the land has been recorded as “Kadeem”. 11. The appellant belongs to Schedule Caste and he pleaded that his father constructed the house over the land. When the proper notice was not published in regard to settlement of land, than the proceedings of settlement are contrary to law. Hence, the Board of Revenue has committed an error of law in setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner and Sub Divisional Officer. 12. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Board of Revenue are hereby set aside. No order as to costs.