( 1 ) THE petitioners' revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Rewa division, passed under the Madhva Predesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act was rejected by the Board of Revenue on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. For doing so the Board of Revenue relied on its previous decisions.

( 2 ) IN Kale Khan v. Board of Revenue, 1970 MPLJ 917 it has been held by this court that 'revenue Officers exercising appellate powers under Section 41 of the ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act function in their official capacity as revenue officers and not as individuals in private capacity; their official capacity is determined by Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code. The orders passed by them are open to revision under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. ' In this view of the matter it must be held that the order of the Board of Revenue was erroneous.

( 3 ) SHRI Baipai, Deputy Advocate General urged before us that the aforesaid decision in Kale Khan's case 1970 MPLJ 917 requires reconsideration. In support of this he relied on Section 49 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act which reads as follows:-" the provisions