1. This rule was issued to show cause why an order passed by the District Judge under the proviso to Section 10, Bengal Alienation of Agricultural Land (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1914, should not be set aside.
2. A preliminary objection has been taken that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in revision with the orders of the District Judge. Section 10 of the Act reads:
Neither the High Court nor any civil Court shall have jurisdiction in any matter which the Collector is empowered to dispose of under this Act:
Provided that any person who is dissatisfied with any order of the Collector made under Section 4 or Sub-section (1) of Section 8 may within 30 days from the date of such order apply in the prescribed manner to the District Judge for the revision of such order and the decision of the District Judge thereon shall be final.
3. It has been contended by the petitioner that this section does not prohibit the exercise of revisional powers by this Court and it has been argued that the section merely prohibits the High Court exercising any jurisdiction to revise the order of the Collector and that as the present application is to revise the orders of the District Judge the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present application.
4. In my opinion, this argument cannot be accepted. It seems to me clear that the effect of the section is to deprive the High Court of any jurisdiction in the matter if such jurisdiction would otherwise have been held to be conferred under any other Act e.g., under Section 115, Civil P.C. But in all probability the true explanation is that the High Court never would have had jurisdiction under this Act nor would any civil Court have done so, and that the proviso merely provides for revision by the District Judge as persona designata and not as a Court. In any case in, my opinion, I have no jurisdiction to revise the order of the District Judge and this rule must accordingly be discharged. I make no order as to costs.