An Additional Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to review his earlier order without obtaining the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner as required by the first proviso to Section 40 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917.

K.L. Pandey, J.

1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises cut of a decision of the learned Single Judge (Kotval J.) who on a petition made by Rani Jamit Kunwar Devi (respondent 1) under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashed an order dated 19 June 1952 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Durg (respondent 2) and another affirming order dated 30 March 1955 passed in appeal by the Board of Revenue (respondent 3).

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are these. A -/13/4 share of village Mardel together with 46-72 acres of khudkasht land in dispute was owned by one Chhabilal who, by a deed dated 29 July 1941, mortgaged with possession the village share along with the khudkasht land to Gaurishanker and Rajaram (appellant 1). Thereafter, on 7 April 1945, Chhabilal sold the village share to Rani Jamit Kunwar Devi who undertook to satisfy the mortgage out of the consideration payable for the sale.

3. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Abolition Act) came into force on 31 March 1951. Pursuant to the provisions of that Act, proceedings were started for determination of compensation payable to the ex-proprietors of village Mardel. On 20 March 1952, the Compensation Officer reported on the strength of sale deed dated 7 April 1945 that the disputed khudkasht land was the homefarm of Rani Jamit Kunwar Devi and that it was wrongly recorded in the name of Gaurishankar. Thereupon, on 26 March 1952, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Durg, passed the following order :-

The provisional assessment of homefarm land as proposed by the C.C.O. Balod is confirmed and the ex-proprietor is deemed a malik-makbuza in respect of the same.

However, on 19 June 1952, he reviewed that order and held :-

Gaurishanker is recorded as an occupancy tenant in the jamabandis of 1950-51 though in the remarks column it is shown that the non-applicant is a Sikmi Bilalagan. I am of opinion that the khasra numbers in question as detailed in the copy of jamabandi for 1950-51 filed in the case (Ex. P 22) should continue to be left with the applicant Gaurishanker in occupancy right and should be deducted from the homefarm land of the ex-proprietor. My previous order dated 26-3-52 is modified accordingly.

Rani Jamit Kunwar Devi appealed against that order to the Board of Revenue which, by its order dated 30 March 1955, dismissed the appeal.

4. The learned Single Judge held that the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Durg, in review of his earlier older was without jurisdiction and that, even on merits, Gaurishanker and Rajaram had no case. The view taken by the learned Single Judge has been challenged in this appeal.

5. The first question which we have to consider is whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner Durg, had jurisdiction to review his order dated 26 March 1952. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Abolition Act is relied on as conferring on the Additional Deputy Commissioner the requisite power of review. As the learned Single Judge pointed out, that power could be exercised only in regard to a decision given or a record made under Section 13 of the Abolition Act which dealt mainly with compensation payable to ex-proprietors. It was no doubt also provided therein that the Compensation Officer had to record "in a statement in the prescribed form, the details of the land which shall vest in the State Government after its acquisition in lieu of the payment of such compensation and such other details as may be prescribed". It was implicit in that provision that any dispute between the State Government and an ex-proprietor about land vesting in the State had to be decided. It did not, however, give any power to the Compensation Officer to decide any dispute between an ex-proprietor and a third person about title to land not vesting in the State. Nor coould a third person who was not a party to the proceedings, be bound by such a decision. T