Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Nand Kishore for a writ, direction or order against the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. One Chhagan Lal has also been made a party. No one has, however, appeared on behalf of the opposite parties to oppose the application.
(2.) THE facts, which have led to this application, are these. THE applicant is a resident of village Shyampura. His father Ramchandra was a Patel or Lumberdar of the village, which lies now in the District of Kotah. Ram Chandra was removed from Patelship, and Anandilal, father of Chhagan Lal, opposite party, was appointed in his place some years ago. When Anandilal died, the question of appointing a Patel in his place arose, and there were two claimants, namely, Chhagan Lal opposite party and Nand Kishore applicant. THE matter was eventually decided by the Revenue Commissioner, Kotah, on the 22nd of June, 1949, and he appointed both, the applicant and the opposite party, as Patels of the village, one-fourth of the village being under the Patelship of Nand Kishore and three-fourths under the Patelship of Chhagan Lal. THEreafter there was an appeal to the Board of Revenue of former Rajasthan on the 9th of August, 1949, by Chhagan Lal. This appeal came to the Board of Revenue of the present State of Rajasthan when it was formed on the 1st of November, 1949. THE appeal was once decided by the Board, but there was a writ application to this Court, and the decision of the Board was set aside, and the case sent back for fresh decision. Eventually the Board of Revenue decided the appeal on the 12th of February, 1954, and set aside that part of the order of the Revenue Commissioner by which the applicant was appointed Patel of one-fourh of the village, and directed that Chhaganlal, opposite party, be the sole Patel for the whole village. THE present application is against this order of the Board, and the main contention of the applicant is that the Board had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Revenue Commissioner of Kotah, dated 22nd June, 1949. THE point was raised before the Board also, but was overruled by it. In order to decide the question of jurisdiction of the Board, we have to look to the state of the law as it was on the 22nd of June, 1949, when the order of the Revenue Commissioner was passed. The present State of Rajasthan had been formed by then, but rest of the laws, which were in force in the former State of Rajasthan, were still continuing by vitrtue of Ordinance No. I of 1949. The former Rajasthan State had promulgated Ordinance No. XX of 1949, for purposes of Revenue Administration, and sec. 4 of that Ordinance gave power to the Government, by orders or rulers published in the official gazette, to provide, for the purpose of the revenue administration, for creation or appointment of officers and authorities, and conferment of powers and imposition of duties on them ; for laying down the procedure of revenue officers and authorities ; for making provisions for collection and assessment of land revenue and matters connected therewith ; and for making such provisions as the Government thought fit so long as they were connected with land revenue. Sec. 5 of the Ordinance also provided that orders, rules and other provisions made by the Government under sec. 4 would have effect as if enacted in the Ordinance. In pursuance of the powers conferred by sec 4 of the Ordinance, the Government of former Rajasthan issued a notification No. 6952 on the 17th of August, 1948. Item 76 of this notification provides for the appointment of Patels or Lumberdars. We are concerned in this case with the District of Kotah, and in the "remarks" column it is provided that in the District of Kotah the Commissioner would have full powers in this matter. It may be mentioned that before the creation of the State of former Rajasthan this village was in the former Kotah State, and under Circular No. 11, dated 1st of December, 1922, of the former State of Kotah the appointment of Lumberdars could only be made by the Mahakma Khas on the recommendation of the Commissioner. Consequently on the death of Anandilal, the Revenue Commissioner of Kotah, under notification No. 6952 appointed both Nand Kishore and Chhagan Lal as Patels, and fixed the limits within which they could work in the village. This order was taken in appeal by Chhaganlal before the Board of Revenue of the State of former Rajasthan on the 9th of August 1949. There is no provision in Notification No. 6952, already mentioned above, for appeal to the Board of Revenue. We only find a note at the end, which says that in those matters, which are not covered by this Notification, the decision in case of appeal would be made according to the existing laws of the various States. The Board of Revenue, in their judgment, also do not point out to any law in force on the 22nd of June, 1949, according to which the order of the Revenue Commissioner appointing a Patel was open to appeal to the Board of Revenue. All that we have been able to find is a notification of the State of former Rajasthan dated 27th September, 1248. and published in the Gazette of 11th October, 1948, constituting the Board of Revenue and appointing its members. We have also found a notification No. 5599, dated 10th November, 1948, and published in the Government Gazette of 15th November, 1918, by which the Board of Revenue was given the power under sec. 4 of Ordinance No. XX of 1941 to hear all appeals which lay to the Government or any Minister from the decisions of the Revenue Officers. Thus the Board of the State of former Rajasthan on the administrative side had powers to hear all appeals which lay to the Government or any Minister from the decision of the Revenue Officers. But as we have already pointed out, there was no provision in the former State of Kotah for any appeal from the order of appointing of a Patel, for the Order was made by the Mahakma Khas itself. When that power was delegated to the Revenue Commissioner, Kotah, by Notification No. 6952, there was no provision for appeal so far as we have been able to find out. Therefore, all that the aggrieved party could do in the state of law which we have been able to ascertain as prevalent in June, 1949, was that if he was dis-satisfied with the order of the Commissioner of Kotah, he could make a representation to the Government of the State of former Rajasthan for revising that order in exercise of its power of superintendence and control over all its officers. There was, however, no power, so far as we have been able to find, corresponding to sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949 (No XXII of 1949) in the Board of Revenue of the State of former Rajasthan. It follows, therefore, that no appeal or revision could lie to the Board of Revenue from the order of the Revenue Commissioner, Kotah, dated 22nd June, 1942, in the matter of appointment of a Patel, nor could the Board of Revenue of the State of former Rajasthan interfere with such an order, as there was no provision entitling it to control and superintend the actions of the Revenue Officers of the State of former Rajasthan, Therefore, the appeal that was made to the Board of Revenue in August, 1949, was incompetent. Notification No. 5599 also cannot come to the help of the Board of Revenue, because by that Notification the Board of Revenue was authorised to hear all appeals which lay to the Government or any Minister. , No provision has, however, been shown which provided an appeal to the Government or any Minister from the order of the Commissioner of Kotah appointing a Patel. As we have said, the Government could certainly revise that order in exercise of its power of superintendence and control, but that is the only way in which that order could be revised. The Board of Revenue assumed jurisdiction in this case on the basis of secs. 19 and 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, (No. I of 1951), It is enough to say that Act No. I of 1951 applies to proceedings before revenue courts and not to proceedings of administrative nature before Revenue Officers. The appointment of a Patel is not contained in any of the Schedules to Act No. I of 1951, and is obviously an administrative matter, as is clear from Notification No. 6952, which was issued by the State of former Rajasthan under its powers under the United State of Rajasthan Revenue Administration Ordinance, 1948, (No. XX of 1948 ). The Board of Revenue, therefore, could not utilise either sec. 19 or sec. 26 of Act No. I of 1951, to assume jurisdiction in this case. The only power which the Board of Revenue has is under sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance (No. XXII of 1949 ). Under that section the Board has the power of general superintendence and control over all other revenue courts and officers, and all such courts and officers are subordinate to the Board. This power of the Board of general superintendence and control is obviously of two kinds, namely, (1) over revenue courts and (2) over revenue officers. The first is a judicial power analogous to the power conferred on this Court by Art. 227 of the Constitution. The second is an administrative power, which has been conferred on the Board as it stands at the apex of the revenue administration. This power under sec. 12, however, is not retrospective, and can only be exercised by the Board with reference to matters decided on or after the 1st of November, 1949. The conclusion, therefore, to which we come is that the appeal to the Board of Revenue of former Rajasthan was incompetent, when it was made in August, 1949, and that that Board of Revenue had no power under any law analogous to sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance (No. XXII of 1949) to superintend and control the actions of the revenue officers of former Rajasthan. In these circumstances, the present Board of Revenue, which succeeded that Board of Revenue, could neither deal with this matter on the judicial side, as it is not a judicial matter at all, nor on the administrative side, because the former Board did not have the power analogous to that conferred on the present Board by sec. 12 of Ordinance No. XXII of 1949. The remedy of Chhagan Lal, under the circumstances, was to make a representation to the Government, and that he has never done so far. We, therefore, allow the application, and set aside the order of the Board of Revenue dated 12th February, 1954. As nobody has appeared on the other side, we pass no order as to costs. .;