ORDER : Ajay Rastogi, J. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dated 10th May, 2017. 2. The writ petition was preferred at the instance of the Gram Panchayat Manda Bhinda through elected Sarpanch assailing order passed by the ld. Sub-Divisional Officer arising from the proceedings initiated under section 136 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 dated 23rd April, 2010 at the instance of the legal representatives of late Prabhu Nath followed by order of the ld. Divisional Commissioner dated 14th March, 2012 and of the Board of Revenue dated 12th February, 2016. 3. At the outset it may be noticed that the Gram Panchayat at whose instance the writ petition was filed is indisputably not a party to the proceedings before the Revenue Courts. 4. The impleaded respondents who are claiming to be legal representatives of late Prabhu Nath S/o Arjun Lal filed application under section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for a very limited purpose i.e. correction of errors/clerical errors and any errors which the parties interested admit to have been made in the record of rights or registered and for passing appropriate orders and summary procedure is to be followed by the Officer, since it is based on the records needs no further evidence to be led by the parties or adjudicate the dispute. 5. In the instant case, after the application came to be filed by the parties who are interested for seeking correction of errors in the record of their rights maintained by the authorities including the Tehsildar/Revenue Officer, the custodian of the record, the Competent Authority called for the report from the office of the concerned Tehsildar who submitted its report on 4th April, 2006 but it appears that complete factual report, as desired was not furnished by the Officer. A further report was sought which was submitted by the Tehsildar on 10th July, 2006 & based on the two reports which were furnished by a responsible Officer and a custodian of record, the Competent Authority place reliance and disposed of the application with a direction to the Tehsildar, Chomu to pass necessary orders in terms of the report on which credence has been recorded by the Officer dated 4th April, 2006 and 10th July, 2006. 6. 6. It reveals from the record that a Review Application was filed and the Authority revisited the matter afresh without pointing out any apparent error on record reviewed and set aside its earlier order dated 23rd April, 2010 which was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur under section 75 of the Act, 1956 and review order was set aside vide order dated 14th March, 2012 which was challenged by the State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Chomu in appeal before the Board of Revenue and since the appeal was barred by limitation and no justification was tendered in the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation, as prayed for, the ld. Board of Revenue dismissed the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act and in consequence, the appeal was dismissed being incompetent vide order dated 12th February, 2016. 7. As observed and noticed by us, the present appellant was not party to the proceedings at any stage and this court can take note that the proceedings are initiated in 2002 and after the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal preferred by the State Government, the Gram Panchayat approached this court by filing of the writ petition which came to be dismissed by the ld. Single Judge vide its order impugned dated 10th May, 2017. 8. When the matter last come before us, we requested counsel for the appellant to seek instructions & inform as to whether order passed by the Board of Revenue has at all been challenged by either parties to the proceedings including State Government. 9. Counsel, on instructions, informed that the State Government has not assailed the order of the Board of Revenue. 10. 9. Counsel, on instructions, informed that the State Government has not assailed the order of the Board of Revenue. 10. The submission of the appellant's counsel is that reports on which reliance was placed by the officer dated 4th April, 2006 and 10th July, 2006 while passing order dated 23rd April, 2010 on its bare perusal will show the factual error and Section 136 of the Act, 1956 could not be invoked and that was the reason for which review was called for and the Divisional Commissioner did not look into the matter and as regards, the Board of Revenue is concerned, since the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected, leaving no occasion to examine the matter on merits but still observation was made confirming order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 23rd April, 2010 was not justified and the grievance of the appellant is that although the Gram Panchayat was not party to the proceedings but their rights are seriously jeopardized by orders of the ld. Revenue Courts below and this has not been examined on merits by the ld. Single Judge under the order impugned dated 10th May, 2017. 11. Indisputably, the present appellant was not party to the proceedings at any stage which originated in 2002 and as observed Section 136 of the Act, 1956 can be invoked for correction of errors based on the records maintained by the Government or its officers, who are custodians of record and being summary proceedings no independent investigation/enquiry is required and there is no requirement for the parties to lead evidence and adjudication of the dispute and we too are of the view that the application filed under section 136 of the Act, 1956 deserves to be decided expeditiously since keeping such applications pending creating third party intervention which is more problematic than resolving the issue. 12. 12. In the instant case, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2002 and we are in the year 2017 and still the rights, as prayed for, correction of errors in records has not attained finality because of the tier of remedies being availed by the stranger who are not party to the proceedings and after we have heard counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the Gram Panchayat is not holding any locus standi to assail order of the revenue courts initially passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 23rd April, 2010. 13. It was not the case of the appellant that order dated 23rd April, 2010 or its consequential order passed on review application when came to their knowledge and nothing has been placed on record which could prima facie support their submission and it is possibly not acceptable that those who are claiming themselves to be the custodians of the subject land in question, remain completely unaware/ignorant of the orders passed by the Competent Authorities and questioning the same at such a belated stage. 14. After we have heard counsel for the appellant, we find no error being committed by the ld. Single Judge under its order impugned dated 10th May, 2017 which may call for our interference. 15. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.