1. This is a revision application against an order of the Assistant Collector, Amber dated 28.8.1951 by which he imposed a fine of Rs. 50/- upon the petitioner under sec. 6 of the Removal of Trees Ordinance. 2. A preliminary point raised by the opposite party in this case is that a revision does not lie to the Revenue Board against an order passed under the Rajasthan Removal of Trees Ordinance. There is no provision for a revision in that Ordinance and the provision for punishment of fine was a punitive provision and the Board could not revise such an Order. 3. The Board being the highest Revenue Court of appeal and revision has the power to call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate revenue court. Therefore, if the order passed by the S. D. O. be deemed to be an order of a revenue court the Board has the power to revise its order. Therefore, the point for determination is whether the power to impose fine under sec. 6 of the Ordinance is given to a revenue court or to a criminal court. 4. The preamble to the Rajasthan Removal of Trees (Regulation) Ordinance, 1949, "says Whereas it is expedient to provide for the regulation of removal of trees standing on occupied and unoccupied lands within Rajasthan : Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by paragraph (3) of Art. X of the Covenant His Highness the Raj Pramukh is pleased to make and promulgate the following Ordinance". This clearly shows that the object of this Ordinance was to provide for the regulation of the removal of trees. The right of removal of trees ordinarily is regulated by the provisions of Tenancy Act. A Khatedar is given certain rights to remove trees and the land holder is also given rights of removing trees on unoccupied land. Therefore, this Ordinance was meant to regulate those rights. The provision of fine is made for unauthorised removal of trees in the Tenancy Act also. Sec. 49 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act reads as under:— "Whoever cuts trees in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall under the orders of the Tehsildar be liable to a fine up to Rs. 50/-". Therefore, by mere provision of fine it can not be said that the order passed was not of a revenue court or a revenue officer. 5. 50/-". Therefore, by mere provision of fine it can not be said that the order passed was not of a revenue court or a revenue officer. 5. Sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, lays down savings. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, nothing in this Act shall in any way affect the provisions of the Rajasthan Removal of Trees (Regulation) Ordinance, 1949 (No. VIII of 1949) the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance, 1949 (No. IX of 1949) the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, (No. XX of 1949) or the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949 (No. XXII of 1949). The Ordinances mentioned in this section are all administered by the revenue courts and hence it was considered necessary to save them from the provisions of this Act. The implication being that if this saving clause had not been introduced they would have been covered by the provisions made in this Act. This clearly shows that the Ordinances mentioned in this section are Ordinances relating to revenue matters and are within the jurisdiction of the revenue courts. 6. The power to issue licences has been given in sec. 5 of the Removal of Trees Ordinance to a S. D. O. and similarly the power to impose fine has also been given to a S. D. O. who is a Revenue Officer under the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949. 7. In view of the above facts I hold that the order of fine passed under the Rajasthan Removal of Trees Ordinance was by a revenue Court and as such a revision can be entertained by the Board of Revenue. 8. Looking to the facts of the case I find that the unauthorised cutting of trees by the petitioner had been fully established and there is no reason for this court to interfere with the order of the S. D. O. The revision application is, therefore, hereby rejected.