DAYAL, J. :- A preliminary objection was taken at the hearing of this petition to the effect that This Court had no jurisdiction to take proceedings for contempt of the Court of the Assistant Collector, first class, with respect to proceedings pending before it for the correction of papers under S.40, Land Revenue Act (Act 3 of 1901).

2. Section 2, sub-s.(1), Contempt of Courts Act (12 of 1926) is :

"Subject to the provisions of sub-s.(3) the High Courts of Judicature established by Letters Patent shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of Courts subordinate to them as they have and exercise in respect of contempts of themselves."

The contention for the opposite party is that the Court of an Assistant Collector, first class, under the Land Revenue Act is not subordinate to the High Court and that, therefore, this Court cannot take action with respect to contempts committed of that Court.

3. It is submitted for the petitioner that the Court of the Assistant Collector, first class, under the Land Revenue Act, is subordinate to this Court on account of this Court having appellate jurisdiction over it. Support for this is sought in two ways. Firstly, it is argued that appeals against, decrees passed by such Court under S.111, sub-s.(3), Land Revenue Act, are appealable to the District Judge or the High Court under the rules applicable to appeals to those Courts and that, therefore, in view of this appellate jurisdiction this Court will be deemed to exercise superintendence over that Court in all matters, irrespective of the fact whether orders passed in those matters would be appealable to or revisable by this Court or not. Secondly, it is argued that under para 11 of the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court this Court is a Court of appeal from all civil Courts within its jurisdiction.

4. It is clear that if this Court has no appellate jurisdiction over the Court of the Assistant Collector, first class, under the Land Revenue Act, that Court cannot be said to be subordinate to this Court.

5. The provisions of the Land Revenue Act make it clear that the Court of the Assistant Collector, first class, is subordinate to the higher revenue Courts provided in that Act.

6. There is no dispute about it. All orders of the Assistant Collector, first class, are appealable to the Collector under S.210, sub-s.(1), cl.(A). Under S.218 the Commissioner can examine the record of any case decided or proceeding held by an officer subordinate to him and can refer the case, with his opinion, for the orders of the Board if the case is of a judicial nature or connected with settlement, or for the orders of the Local Government if the case is of a non-judicial nature or not connected with settlement. Under S.219 the Board itself can call for the record of any case of a judicial nature or connected with settlement and pass necessary orders in certain circumstances. Section 191 of the Act empowers the Board or the Commissioner to transfer any judicial case, including partition cases, from any subordinate revenue Court or revenue officer to any other such Court or officer competent to deal therewith. It shows that a revenue Court trying partition cases is subordinate to the Commissioner and the Board. Section 5 of the Act provides that the control of all judicial matters and of all matters connected with settlement under the Act is vested in the Board.

7. It is, therefore, clear that the Board controls the proceedings connected with judicial matters in the Courts of the Commissioner, the Collector and Assistant Collectors, and that the Board is the final appellate or revisional authority in connection with the judicial orders of these Courts. The Court of the Assistant Collector, first class, must, therefore, be held subordinate to the Courts of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Board. The question then is whether the Court of the Assistant