It is at this stage, reading the claim made through the application under Section 4(9) of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 as discussed by the Tahasildar, there remains no doubt that the petitioner therein had the application only for determination of rent involving the disputed land therein. For the provision confining determination of rent at Section 4(9) of the O.L.R. Act, 1960, this Court has no hesitation to observe that the Tahasildar has not only misread the provision under Section 4(9) of the O.L.R. act, 1960 but he has also exceeded his jurisdiction while dealing with the application under Section 4(9) of the O.L.R. Act, 1960. 7. Going to Section 58 of the Act, 1960, dealing with the second issue involved herein, this Court reading the Section 58 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 finds Section 58 of the Act relates to appeal provision inclusive of entire Section 4 of the O.L.R. Act. Therefore, all provisions coming under section 4 of the O.L.R. Act are appealable. In the circumstance, this Court finds there is justified making the allegation that the revisional authority has misread the provision at Section 58 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960. As a consequence, this Court finds the revisional authority has not applied his mind judiciously and the order passed therein remains contrary to the statutory provision under Section 58 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960.
