- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under sec. 66 of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 against an appellate order of the learned Additional Collector, Ajmer, dated 25. 10. 57.
(2.) ON being objected to about the competency of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that there in no provision under the said Act for filing a second appeal. He therefore, prayed that this appeal be heard as a revision. This was again objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the said Act does not contain any such provision. We find a good deal of substance in this argument. In A. I. R. 1938 (FC) it was held that though every court of superior jurisdiction possesses inherent powers for certain purposes, we know of no authority for the proposition that a court by the exercise of inherent power can extend its appellate jurisdiction or increase its revisional authority over other courts. It was further held that the revisional and supervisory jurisdiction is entirely a creature of statute and no High Court has any inherent power of revision over the subordinate courts. This being so, we hold that we are not competent to hear this application in revision. In the alternative, it was prayed that this application be heard by us in the exercise of our powers of general superintendence and control under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The proceedings having been started under the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955, the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act are not applicable and therefore, we do not find ourselves competent to exercise our extra-ordinary power under sec. 9 of the Act. It was urged that as gross illegality has been committed by the lower courts in the interpretation of rules 48 and 49 of the rules framed under the said Act, this Board being the highest court of appeals and revisions may exercise its inherent powers under sec. 151 C. P. C. to prevent the abuse of the process of court. The learned counsel for the opposite party repelled this contention and urged that as the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to proceedings under the Act, this court is not competent to exercise its inherent power under sec. 151 of the code. It may be that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not made applicable to such proceedings under the Act, but in appropriate cases, the highest court of appeal and revision can, under the general law of the land viz. the C. P. C. invoke its inherent power under sec. 151 of the Code if it is proved to its satisfaction that there exists gross injustice or abuse of the process of court in the decisions of the subordinate courts. Th. Umaid Singh vs. Mod Singh RLW. 1954 (Revenue Supplement) p. 67 is an authority on this point. Accordingly, we proceeded to examine the merits of the case. The appellant himself filed his form in accordance with rule 48 and the same was admitted and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of law. He has also admitted before us that he has in his cultivatory possession some other land as Khudkasht. This being so, the proceedings were rightly started under rules 48 and rule 49 is not applicable. There is thus no gross illegality or abuse of the process of the court to justify an interference by this court. Taking this aspect of the matter into consideration we direct that this application should stand dismissed. .;