ORDER

11.3.2004 — This writ petition stands disposed of at the stage of admis¬sion on consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging to the order passed on 15.10.2001 by the Collector, Puri in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2001.

3. The fact in dispute is not necessary to be restated here save and except nothing that application for mutation was disposed of by the Tahasildar, Puri vide Mutation Case No. 1092 of 1996 and that was called in question by the opposite party No.2 by filing Misc. Case No. 20 of 2001. Though the question of jurisdiction was raised by the present petitioner but without considering the same, learned Collector, Puri passed the impugned order and remanded the case for fresh disposal after setting aside order of mutation dated 20.2.2001 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Puri in the aforesaid Mutation Case No. 1092 of 1996.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that provi¬sion in Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 and the Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Act’ and ‘the Rules’) made thereunder does not vest jurisdiction with the Collector to exercise appellate or super¬visory jurisdiction against mutation order of the Tahasildar inasmuch as according to the provision in Section 16 of the Act read with Rule 42 of the Rules. Sub Divisional Officer is the appellate authority and according to Section 32 of the Act power of revision has been invested with the Board of Revenue. Accord¬ingly, he argues that the impugned judgment of the Collector, Puri is without jurisdiction and that be quashed.

5. Mr. S. P. Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 defends the said order with reference to Section 31 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act but concedes that the provision in that Section does not authorise the Collector to entertain a Misc.case as against the order of mutation. He also argues that if the Collector has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, then the matter be regarded as an appeal and the Collector be directed to transfer the same to the file of the Sub-Divisional Officer to consider the grounds of illegality and impropriety in the order of mutation dated 20.2.2001 because that order has been passed by ignoring the order of mutation passed in Mutation Case No. 685 of 1993 and also ignoring and avoiding the observation and direction made by the Land Reforms Commissioner in R.P. Case No. 776 of 1992.

6. It appears from the impugned order that learned Collec¬tor by referring to various orders passed in different revenue proceedings under the O.E.A. Act and Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, found that learned Additional Tahasildar passed the order of mutation on 20.2.2001 ignoring all such previous orders and that is why he remanded the case for disposal in accordance with law.

7. Chapter IV in the Rules provides the procedure to be followed relating to application for mutation. Such provision in the Rules has been made in conformity with the provision in Section 16 of the Act relating to maintenance of records. Section 29 of the Act provides that all authorities hearing application, appeal or revision under any provision of the Act, shall do so as Revenue Courts. Rule 34 provides the grounds on which correction of the record-of-rights and map is to be made. Rule 35 provides for the registration of the mutation proceeding. Rule 41 provides the manner of disposal of mutation applications. Rule 42 provides that if the order of mutation is passed by an Assistant Settle¬ment Officer exercising the power of Tahasildar, then appeal shall lie to the Settlement Officer under whose administrative control such Assistant Settlement Officer works and if the order of mutation is passed by the Tahasildar, then appeal shall lie to the Sub-Divisional Officer. That provision makes it clear that an order of mutation is appealable. The power of review in Rule 43, only authorises the officer who passes the order to review the same on the ground of any mistake or error a