Wanchoo, C. J - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Veer Singh against the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, in a matter arising out of the Marwar Patta Act.
(2.) THE facts of the case are briefly these. THE applicant is a resident of Jodhpur City. He made an application to the Patta Officer, Jodhpur City, for the grant of Patta of certain land adjoining his house, which is within municipal limits. One Naraindass, who appears as opposite party No. 2, objected to the grant of Patta of the land to the applicant. THE Patta Officer made a certain recommendation in July 1935 and the Patta Committe eventually granted Patta for four of the plots to the applicant but refused his prayer for Patta of two other plots. Consequently, the applicant filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue against this decision of the Patta Committee under sec. 30 of the Patta Act. THE Board of Revenue held on the 19th of April, 1957 that the appeal lay to the Commissioner and ordered that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the present applicant for presentation to the proper court. THE present application is directed against this order of the Board of Revenue and the applicant contends that the appeal lies to the Board and not to the Commissioner and therefore the order of the Board, dated 29th April, 1957, be set aside and the Board be directed to hear the appeal according to law. Sec. 30 of the Patta Act stood as follows at the relevant time. (We have taken into account the amendments made in 1943, 1946 and 1949): - "any person aggrieved by an order of the Deputy Commissioner or the Appellate Committee of the Municipal Board or any other Committee of the Municipal Board specially appointed for this purpose may appeal against the order to the Board of Revenue. " We may mention further that there was a notification of the 23rd March, 1948 by which the Board of Revenue was created by the former State of Marwar. Under that notification the decision of the Board were made appealable to the Ijlas-i-Khas. But that notification came to an end by the Rajasthan Appeals and Petitions (Discontinuance) Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. XL of 1949) so that the final position in 1956 when the order was passed in this case by the Patta Committee (as it is colloquially called) that the appeal from the Patta Committee lay under sec. 50 of the Patta Act to the Board of Revenue with no further appeal. The Board of Revenue in their order of 19th Aprial, 1957, say that in view of a Full Bench decision of the Board, dated 29th December, 1953, the appeal would lie to the Commissioner. A copy of that decision has been placed before us and we have given it respectful consideration, which it deserves. We must say however that we are unable to agree with the Board that an appeal under sec. 30 of the Patta Act now lies to the Commissioner and not to the Board as specifically provided in that section of the Patta Act. The first reason given by the Board in coming to the view that an appeal in a case like the present lies to the Commissioner is that the Board of Revenue in the former State of Marwar was not the highest revenue court of appeal, revision and reference and therefore the appeal should lie to the Commissioner as the Board under the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinancel949, (No. XXII of 1949), is now the highest revenue court subject to the provisions of any special law! Assuming this to be correct we have not been able to understand how this will change the words "board of Revenue" appearing in sec 30 of the Marwar Patta Act into the word "commissioner". If the legislature wanted that the appeals under sec. 30 of the Mal war Patta Act should no longer lie to the Board of Revenue, it should have provided for substitution of the word "commissioner', in place of the words "board of Revenue" in sec. 30 of the Marwar Patta Act. The second reason given by the Board for holding that the appeal should lie in such a case to the Commissioner is that in the former State of Marwar there were no commissioners and consequently appeals from the orders of the Deputy Commissioners had to lie to the Board. Now however Commissioner's divisions have been created by the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance (No. XX of 1949) and Commissioners came into existence under the same Ordinance. Under these circumstances, the Board was of the view that appeals from Deputy Commissioners should lie naturally to the Commissioners and not to the Board. It is enough to say that appeals are creatures of statute and it is upto the Legislature to provide appeals to any superior authority that it wishes to designate. The mere fact that a case is decided by a Deputy Commissioner is no reason for holding that the appeal from the Deputy-Commis-ioner will lie to a Commissioner. The Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949, has nothing to do with appeals. It only deals with administrative matters arising out of the division of the State of Rajasthan into divisions, districts, sub-divisions and tehsils. The third reason given by the Board for holding that appeals under sec. 30 would now lie to the Commissioners is based on the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 (No. 1 of 1951 ). Here again we are of opinion that that Act would only apply if it specifically provides for cases covered by the Marwar Patta Act. That Act provides for the creation of revenue courts and confers jurisdiction on them on the subjects which are mentioned in the First and Second Schedules to the Act. Now the only item in the Schedules which relates to a matter like this is item 14 of Group E of the First Schedule. That provides for the trial of applications by a Tehsildar if the amplication relates to the purchase of home site in abadi outside municipal limits. In a case under this item the appeal will lie as provided under the Act to the Collector. But it cannot be said that giving of Patta of land lying in municipal areas is covered by this item. There is no item in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 in either of the two Schedules which deals with the grant of patta of land within municipal limits. Under the circumstances the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 cannot determine the forum of appeal in a case under sec. 30 of the Marwar Patta Act. The last reason given by the Board for coming to the conclusion that an appeal under sec. 30 of the Marwar Patta Act would lies to the Commissioner is based on section 3 of the Rajasthan City Municipal Appeals (Regulation) Act, 1950, (Act No. III of 1950 ). That Act certainly provides that all municipal appeals will lie to the Commissioners. But "municipal appeal" as defined in that Act means an appeal from an order of a Municipal authority lying under any municipal law to any officer or authority other than a municipal authority. "municipal authority" means any Municipal Board or other local body or authority or any Committee, officer or servant of such Board, body or authority exercising jurisdiction in a city under any municipal law. "municipal law" means the law relating to the administration of municipal affairs for the time being in force in a city or cities of Rajasthan. The word "city" includes the city of Jodhpur. Reading these definitions which are to be found in sec. 2 of the Rajasthan City Municipal Appeals (Regulation) Act (No. III) 1950, it should be clear that an appeal under sec. 30 of the Marwar Patta Act is not a "municipal appeal" and therefore it will not lie to the Commissioner. The consideration therefore of the reasons that led the Board to hold that an appeal in a case like this relating to grant of patta within the municipal limits lies to the Commissioner shows that the reasons have no force. We are thus left with sec. 30 as it stands and that section in clear terms provides that an appeal from what is colloquially called Patta Committee shall lie to the Board of Revenue. No provision has been brought to our notice which has in any way amended these words in sec. 30. In these circumstances an appeal from the Patta Committee within municipal limits must lie to the Board of Revenue under sec. 30 of the Marwar Patta Act. We, therefore, allow the application, set aside the order of the Board of Revenue returning the appeal for presentation to the Commissioner and order that the Board of Revenue will now proceed to hear the appeal according to law. In the circumstances we pass no order as to costs. . ;