Art.227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge orders passed under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act and Art.227 cannot be given retrospective effect to interfere with orders which had become final prior to the commencement of the Constitution.

Judgement

PANIGRAHI, C. J. :- These are three civil revision petitions filed under S.115, Civil P.C., seeking to revise the orders passed in three cases by the Collector acting under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act (Orissa Act 3 of 1948). C.R.301/1949 was presented on 12-10-49 against an order of the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, confirming the order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jaipur allowing the opposite party tenants to cultivate the disputed lands. C.R. 350/1949 was filed on 10-12-49 challenging the correctness of an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Puri, in appeal, against an order of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Khurdha, permitting the tenant-opposite parties to cultivate the lands and imposing a fine of Rs.100/-on the petitioners under S.10 (1), Orissa Tenants Protection Act. The order imposing the fine was, however, set aside by the Additional District Magistrate, while the order directing the tenants to be put in possession was confirmed. C. R.351/1949 was filed on 10-12-49 against the appellate order of the Additional District Magistrate, Puri, confirming the order of the Deputy Collector under S.7, Orissa Tenants Protection Act, allowing the opposite parties to cultivate the disputed lands.

2. In all these petitions the opposite parties are the tenants who have been put in possession of the disputed lands and the landlord-petitioners seek to revise these orders on the ground that they are either without jurisdiction or that the officers below have exceeded their jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. When the matter came up before me, sitting as a single Judge, I felt some difficulty as to whether S.115, C.P.C. was applicable to the orders passed by a Collector under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, as obviously he is not a Court subordinate to this Court while so functioning. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, desired that these applications may be treated as petitions under Art.227 of the Constitution and heard on merits as involving an important question of law, namely, whether orders passed under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act can be regarded as final and conclusive so as to bar the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with them. I permitted learned counsel to treat these applications, as those made under S.227 of the Constitution and they have now come up before us for disposal.

3. A preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the petitions under Art.227 of the Constitution by learned counsel for the opposite parties. Section 11, Orissa Tenants Protection Act as it stood before it was amended in 1951, provided for an appeal against an order of the Collector to the prescribed superior revenue authority whose decision was made final; and the Section added, that it "shall not be subject to any further appeal or revision".

The amended S.11 reads as follows :

"Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under this Act may within thirty days from the date of such order, appeal to the prescribed superior Revenue Authority whose decision thereon shall be final subject to revision by the Board of Revenue. The decision so arrived at shall not be called in question in any Court."

The difference between the two provisions is that before the introduction of the amendment in 1951 (by Orissa Act 17 of 1951) there was only one appeal to the prescribed superior Revenue Authority, and the decision of that Authority was not liable to be questioned by way of further appeal or revision. The amendment however provides for a revision by the Board of Revenue whose decision is not liable to be called in question in any Court. The contention of Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel for the opposite parties, is that the orders passed by the appellate authority have become final and are not subject to any revision by this Court as the power of revision has been expressly taken away by the Legislature.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the