SOHANI, J. : - On a reference made by ' a learned single Judge of this Court (Vijayvargiya, J.), the following question has been referred to this Full Bench :-

"Whether the restrictions placed on the powers to the Second Appellate Courts under Section 36 of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, apply only to second appeals filed before the Board of Revenue and not to second appeals filed before the Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner under Section 36 (1) and (2) thereof ?"

2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid question, briefly, are as follows :-

In a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, directed against the order of the Board of Revenue passed on 16-2-1978, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Board had erred in holding that the Revenue Commissioner hearing a second appeal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of fact. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Prabhudayal v. State (1964 RN 262). The learned single Judge, who heard the petition, was of the opinion that the restrictions on the powers of the second appellate Court provided by Section 36 of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), applied to all the second appellate Courts and that the aforesaid decision of a Division Bench of this Court required re-consideration. Hence, this Full Bench has been constituted to consider the aforesaid question.

3. Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the provisions of Section 36 of the Act Placed restrictions on the powers of the second appellate Court, only when a second appeal was heard by the Board of Revenue, as was evident by a perusal of the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. It was urged that in any event, the decision of this Court in 1964 R. N. 262 (supra) should not be disturbed on the basis of the doctrine of 'stare decisis'. When the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was invited to the Hindi version of the Act published in the Government Gazette dated 6th June, 1952, it was contended that the English translation thereof published in the Gazette was the authorised text and it was not permissible to refer to the Hindi version of the Act published in the Gazette. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in Dayabhai Poonambhai v. Natwarlal Talati, (AIR 1957 Madh Pra 1), Municipal Corporation, Agra v. Gulzari (AIR 1965 All 170), Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited, Meerut v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (III), U. P. Allahabad (AIR 1962 All 240) (FB), Smt. Ram Rati v. Gram Samaj, Jehwa (AIR 1974 All 106) (FB), Bhikam Chand v. State (AIR 1966 Raj 142), and Alok Kumar Agrawal v. State of Bihar (AIR 1976 Pat 392).

4. To appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of law. The Act in question was passed by the Legislature of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat, which had adopted Hindi as the official language of the State by virtue of the provisions of M. B. Official

Language Act, Samvat 2007. Section 3 of the Act runs thus :-

"3. All Bills to be introduced and amendments thereto to be moved in the Legislature and all Acts passed by it and all Ordinances issued by the Rajpramukh; and all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under the Constitution of India or under any law made by the Legislature of Madhya Bharat shall be in Hindi written in the Devanagari script :-

Provided that an authoritative text of the same in the English language, shall be published in accordance with the provisions of Article 348 (3) of the Constitution of India."

By Act No. 18 of 1952 (Samvat 2009), M. B. Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy (Amendment II) Act, Samvat 2007, was amended and Section 36 of the Act providing for second appeals was substituted by the Amendment Act. The Hindi version of Section 36 of the Act, as substituted by the