1. The petitioners' revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, passed under the Madhva Predesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act was rejected by the Board of Revenue on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. For doing so the Board of Revenue relied on its previous decisions.
2. In Kale Khan v. Board of Revenue, 1970 MPLJ 917 it has been held by this Court that 'Revenue Officers exercising appellate powers under Section 41 of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act function in their official capacity as revenue officers and not as individuals in private capacity; their official capacity is determined by Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code. The orders passed by them are open to revision under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.' In this view of the matter it must be heldthat the order of the Board of Revenue was erroneous.
3. Shri Baipai, Deputy Advocate General urged before us that the aforesaid decision in Kale Khan's case 1970 MPLJ 917 requires reconsideration. In support of this he relied on Section 49 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act which reads as follows:--
'The provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder shall have effect, notwithstanding anything Inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court or other authority.'
The contention of the learned counsel is that in not providing revision under Section 42 against the order of the Additional Commissioner a provision inconsistent with the Land Revenue Code has been enacted. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Under Section 49 only the positive provisions made under the Act, if they are inconsistent with any other provision, have preference. Nothing of this kind appears in the provisions of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. This contention is therefore rejected.
4. In the result the petition is allowed, the order of the Board of Revenue dated 17th October 1969 (Annexure 'E' to the petition) is quashed, and the case is remitted to the Board for disposal according to law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. The security deposited by the petitioners shall be refunded to them.