- (1.)THIS special appeal has been filed against the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue dated 22-1-1965, whereby the revision petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur dated 20-9-1963 was rejected.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a mutation order was passed by the Naib Tehsildar on 27-1-63. The opposite party filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Jaipur an 27-7-1963 against this mutation order. The appellant raised the objection on limitation before the Additional Collector, Jaipur. The learned Additional Collector condoned the delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Having felt aggrieved by this order, the appellant came in revision before the Board of Revenue.
Relying on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. the Dy. Land Acquisition Officer (A. I,r. 1961 Supreme Court page 1500, wherein it was held that where the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order, the making of the said order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned, the claimant rejected the revision petition and held that the appeal was within time from the date of communication of the order to the aggrieved party.

The appellant has come up in special appeal against this order. The scope of special appeal is limited and it has been discussed in the various authorities of this Board. It was held in Kalyan vs. Ram Sahay (1962 R. R. D. page 212) that it was restricted to the examination of the question whether the revising powers of the Board had been exercised correctly and properly by the Single Member and no more. A similar observation was made in M/s Bawa Glass & Crockeries P. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (R. R. D. 1965 page 82), to which one of us was a party. It was stated therein that the scope of the appellate power invoked to be exercised in special appeal was limited to the question whether the learned Member sitting singly had exercised the jurisdiction of revision vested in the Board properly or not.

It is well established that there is no ground for interference in revision if the Court below was perfectly within its jurisdiction to pass the order and there was no breach of any provision of law or material irregularity and the Board will not interfere in its revisional jurisdiction if the lower Court has exercised its jurisdiction properly. It is not required of the Board in its revisional jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the case. It has only to see whether the requirements of the law have been duly fulfilled and properly obeyed by the Court whose order is subject to revision and whether the irregularity as to the failure or exercise of jurisdiction warrants the interference with that order. If it finds that the conditions of jurisdiction have been satisfied by the inferior Court, it should not substitute its own appreciation of the evidence or its own judgment thereon for the determination of the inferior Court in any matter committed by the legislature to the discretion of the inferior Court.

We find that in deciding the revision petition as he did the learned Chairman fully respected the provisions relating to the law of revision and there is no ground to justify our interference with his order through this special appeal. As a result this special appeal is hereby rejected with costs. .

;