H.R. Krishnan J.

In all these petitions the prayer is that, in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Board of Revenue and consequently the subordinate Revenue Authorities, such as, the Collector and the Commissioner, should be advised by this Court that an appeal does lie to the Collector from the order of the Tehsildar under Section 38 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act (No. 13 of 1951) in view of the general provisions in Section 35 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act (66 of 1950); and that the decision of the Board of Revenue to the contrary is wrong.

The Board of Revenue has given the decision that an order by the Tehsildar under Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act is not appealable; a large number of appeals before the Collectors and the Commissioners, were rejected and the Appellants in those cases have all come up to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It appears that the present five applications are only part of a large batch of similar applications on the same ground and for the same advice to the Revenue Courts.

In brief, the legal position is that Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act does not envisage that the Tehsildar should pass any order in regard to the claim to Pakka tenancy by a tenant or sub-tenant. The only thing he is expected to do is to receive the deposit of the amounts mentioned, to poet them in the appropriate Deposit Register, to notice to opposite parties of the fact of deposit, if so requested by the depositor on his payment of the proper fees; and to pay on identification, if the person in whose favour the amount is deposited wants to withdraw the deposit. These are all ministerial acts not amounting to an order or judgment as properly understood. Thus, no occasion at all arises for passing of any order properly so called by the Tehsildar under Section 38; so obviously no question is possible whether such an order is appealable or not. Again, in principle an order under any provision of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act would not be appealable, except in accordance with the provision in that Act itself. Certainly a general provision in another Act providing for appeals generally from the orders of the Tehsildar would govern the orders of the Tehsildar under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Act as well, if there is no express or implied exclusion in the later Act. But just before the commencement of this Act, the general provision, "every original decision or final order," in Section 35 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act was amended to "every original order passed under this Act or the rule made thereunder." Thus at the time of these proceedings there was no general right of appeal against the orders of Tehsildar.

This would have been sufficient for the disposal of these applications as being without any force. However, I note that these applicants and the Revenue Courts themselves have been going round and round Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act, touching a sentence here and a clause there, without understanding its real purport. So it will be helpful if the legal position under that section is explained.

Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act confers Pakka tenaney rights on tenants and sub tenants without any proceeding and any adjudication. In both cases subject to certain conditions, and in the case of the latter, subject to a deposit according to the formula given in the section, the rights of Pakka tenancy are deemed to have been conferred; the provision contains a caution that in certain circumstances the right will not be deemed to have been conferred. But no authority need enquire or investigate. The sub-tenant should satisfy himself and make the deposit whether the requirements for the automatic conferment of the pakka tenancy right have been really fulfilled, it is not for any authority under this section to investigate. The Tehsildar comes into picture only as th