- (1.)This revision has; been filed against an appellate order of the Additional Collector Ajmer whereby the original order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Beawar in a case under section 31(3) of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 ( hereinafter inferred to as the Act) was upheld.
(2.)We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of this revision and the same is bound to prevail. Section 66 of the Act lays down that an order of the Sub Divisional Officer under the Act may be challenged in appeal before the Collector whose decision thereon shall be final. This provision therefore expressly lays down that the order passed in -appeal provided by the Act shall be final. We may also refer to sec. 78(2) of the Act which also lays down that except as otherwise provided in this Act no order of the State Government, Sub -Divisional Officer, etc. under the Act shall be called in question in any court. The term court includes the Board of Revenue as well. This question was examined by a Division Bench of the Board in Gajander Singh vs. Daljit Singh, Case No. 34/Ajmer of 1957, decided on 7th February, 1958, to which one of us was a party and a similar view was expressed therein. The learned counsel for the applicants has relied on a decision of the Board in Syed Himmat Ali vs. Ladu, Case No. 13/ Ajmer of 1957 decided on 24th February, 1958, wherein it was held that the Board could not exercise revisional jurisdiction in cases under the Act. It was also held that an appeal could lie only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that revisional jurisdiction was entirely a creation of the statute and unless the statute itself provided for it the Board was not competent to exercise the same. However, in passing an observation was made in this judgment that inherent powers could be exercised under sec. 151 C.P.C. No reference in this judgment was however made to the provisions contained in sec. 78 of the Act. Inherent powers of a court under sec. 151 can be exercised only where there is no express provision of law applicable to the case. Thus where there is a specific prohibition of a particular act or order the court cannot do the act or make the order under its inherent powers. It was further argued on behalf of the applicants that there has been a fraud and deception committed in the case and that it would be a good ground for interference by the Board in the interest of justice if the contention is correct a proposition on which we express no opinion at this stage. It would be open to the applicants to seek other remedies as well. The revision is thus incompetent and is hereby rejected.
;