( 1 ) THE petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the first respondent who is Deputy Secretary to the Government Revenue Departments on August 31 1971 on behalf of and in the name of the Governor of the State of Gujarat; the State of Gujarat is the second respondent herein. The dispute arises in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) SURVEY No. 1330 of Sandher village in Patan Taluka of Mehsana District was Government land and vested in the Government. Deputy Collector Patan disposed of this survey number to respondent No. 3 by his order dated May 3 1970 The petitioner came to know about this order of the Deputy Collector and preferred an appeal against that order to the Collector Mehsana. The Collector Mehsana heard both the parties and passed an order on October 23 1970 allowing the appeal of the petitioner. By that order the Collector directed the Deputy Collector Patan to dispose of the said land after issuing notices to persons in possession of the lands adjacent to the land in question as required by the standing orders of the Government. Against this decision of the Collector Mehsana respondent No.

( 3 ) PREFERRED a revision application to the Government of Gujarat. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat Revenue Department heard the parties and thereafter by the order dated August 31 1971 authenticated by the Deputy Secretary Revenue Department Gujarat State Ahmedabad the revision application was allowed and the order of the Collector Mehsana was set aside. Thereafter the present special civil application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner a against the order passed in revision. 3 In the order under challenge it has been set out that at the hearing of the Revision application it was contended that the Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector while exercising the powers under sec. 37 (2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code exercises the powers as Collector and hence appeal would not lie to the Collector under sec. 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The Government held that except those powers which were reserved by the Collector Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector exercised all the powers by virtue of sec. 10 of the Land Revenue Code so when they exercised the powers of a Collector in view of a High Court judgment no appeal or revision would lie to the Collector against that order. It was on this preliminary point that the order of the Collector was set aside as being without jurisdiction.

( 4 ) IN Dallumiya Lalmiya v. State XII G. L. R. 668 a Division Bench of our High Court has held that when a Mamlatdar to whom the powers of the Collector have been delegated under sec. 12 of the of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) passes an order under sec. 37 (2) of the Code the appeal against such an order would never lie either to the Prant Officer or to the Collector himself but would lie to the Revenue Tribunal. It is common ground before me that be order in question was passed not under sec. 37 (2) of the Code but under sec. 37 (1) of the Code. It is also common ground that the order in be first instance under sec. 37 (1) was passed by the Deputy Collector Patan and controversy before me is within a narrow compass and that controversy is as to which is the forum to which an appeal would lie against an order of the Deputy Collector functioning under sec. 37 (1) read with sec. 10 of the Code.

( 5 ) SEC. 9 of the Code provides that the State Government may appoint to each district so many Assistant Collectors and so many Deputy Collectors as it may deem expedient. All such Assistant and Deputy Collectors and all other officers employed in the land revenue administration of the district shall be subordinate to the Collector. Sec. 10 in the first paragraph provides that subject to the general orders of the State Government a Collector may place any of his assistants or deputies in charge of the revenue administration of one or mo