SARJOO PROSAD, C. J. -. This is an appeal under S. 9 of the Assam Adhiars Protection and Regulation Act, 1948 (As­sam Act XII of 1943). It is directed against an order dated 25-11-1952 passed by Mr. B. M. Dam, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara. (2) It arises out of an application under S. 5 of the said Act filed by the respondent for evic­tion of the appellant from certain lands on the grounds mentioned in clauses (ii) and (iii) of S. 5. It was alleged that the appellant had been mis­using the land so as to render it unfit for culti­vation and that he had not paid the paddy rent or the share of the adhiar crops to the respon­dent. It appears that Mehar Sheik, the appellant had executed in favour of the respondent a regis­tered adhinama on the 11th June 1945 in respect of 25 bighas of land. "Under the document in ques­tion he undertook to pay her the share of the adhiar crops and in fact in 1352, 1353 and 13.54 B.S. the appellant did divide the crops with the res­pondent taut failed to deliver her share of the crops thereafter. In addition, it was alleged that he had dug a pit of about 40 cubits x 20 cubits x 4 cubits on the land without the knowledge of the respondent or her consent and constructed six or seven houses on the land thereby making it unfit for the pur­pose of cultivation. The appellant denied that he was an adhiar or that as such he delivered any crops to the respondent. On the contrary the appellant took up the position that he was a chukani (occupancy) tenant under the respondent. He also denied having exe­cuted the Adhinama set up by the respondent. (3) On the above grounds, the respondent fil­ed an application under s. 5 for eviction of the appellant. Some of the facts do not appear to have been disputed. The appellant's father Mehar Sheik was a tenant under the respondent in res­pect of this land. After the death of Mehar Sheik the respon­dent instituted a suit for rent against the appel­lant and the other heirs and obtained a decree in execution of which the respondent purchased the land in question on 23rd November, 1942 and ob­tained delivery of possession on the 8th May, 1945. After the death of Mehar Sheik the respon­dent instituted a suit for rent against the appel­lant and the other heirs and obtained a decree in execution of which the respondent purchased the land in question on 23rd November, 1942 and ob­tained delivery of possession on the 8th May, 1945. Thereafter the appellant obtained possession as an Adhiar under a registered adhinama, (4) The said application came to be heard eventually by the Additional Deputy Commissioner who I must say in a well discussed order dispos­ed of the matter. The officer found that the alle­gations of the appellant were incorrect; that he had executed the registered adhinama in favour of the respondent and that he was in possession of the land under the adhinama in question. He also found that the statement of the res­pondent that the land had been misused and ren­dered unfit for cultivation by digging pits and erection of houses was correct. It was also held by the officer that the appellant had divided the crops in previous years but refused to do so after 1354 B.S. and on these grounds the respondent was justified in filing an application under S. 5 of the Assam Adhiars Protection and Regulation Act, 1948 for eviction of the appellant. On these findings, the Additional Deputy Commissioner passed the order in question which is challenged be­fore us. (5) At the outset, a question has been raised that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to dispose of the application because the said officer was not a Revenue Officer within the meaning of S. 2, sub-s. (8) of the Act. Sub­section (8) defines a "Revenue Officer" thus: "Revenue Officer" means any officer appoint­ed by the Provincial Government by name or by virtue of his office to discharge any of the func­tions of a Revenue Officer under this Act and includes the Deputy Commissioner of a District and the Sub divisional Officer of a Subdivision." The section therefore provides that the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub divisional Officer of a Subdivision are ex-officio Revenue Officers, but there may be revenue officers appointed by the Provincial Government by name or by virtue of their office to discharge the functions of a Re­venue Officer under the Act. Now the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not an ex-officio Re­venue Officer as provided by the law. Now the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not an ex-officio Re­venue Officer as provided by the law. The question then arises whether the Provin­cial Government had by name or by virtue of his office appointed him to discharge the functions of a revenue officer under the Act. We called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner on the point and the Deputy Commissioner concedes that Mr. Dam, the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not a Revenue Officer as provided by S. 2 (8) of the Act on the date of the order in question, nor was there any notification of Government authorising him to act as Deputy Commissioner under the rules on the above date. This being so, Mr. Dam, had no jurisdiction to deal with the application under S. 5 of the Act which could be disposed of only by a "Revenue Officer" as required by the Act. The application it­self had been presented to the Deputy Commis­sioner but as it appears under some misapprehen­sion of the powers of the Additional Deputy Com­missioner, it was placed for hearing before him; and although the order passed by the learned offi­cer is a well considered order discussing very lucid­ly the points involved and the evidence given by the parties, I regret very much that I have to in­terfere with the order on account of the fact that it was obviously without jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner in his report ap­pears to suggest that at no stage any serious ob­jection was taken to the competence of the officer to dispose of the application in question but the omission to do so will not confer any jurisdiction on the officer which he did not possess under the law and as the matter affects his jurisdiction, con­sent or otherwise would be immaterial. (6) Mr. Ghose on behalf of the respondent has urged that the appeal itself is incompetent be­cause if Mr. Dam passed the order in question as a Revenue Officer, an -appeal lay under the rules to the Deputy Commissioner and the appeal not having been preferred before him, the present appeal is incompetent. In the alternative he suggests that even if he purported to pass the order in question as a Deputy Commissioner, this Court in revision should not interfere. The order does not clearly specify in what capacity Mr. Dam purported to act. In the copy of the order at one stage Mr. In the alternative he suggests that even if he purported to pass the order in question as a Deputy Commissioner, this Court in revision should not interfere. The order does not clearly specify in what capacity Mr. Dam purported to act. In the copy of the order at one stage Mr. Dam has re­marked that as a Revenue Officer, he was not in­clined to accept certain pleas raised by the appel­lant but at the end of the judgment he signs the order in question as 'Additional Deputy Commis­sioner.' It is contended on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Deb that as he purported to act as Deputy Commissioner, and as such as a "Revenue Officer," although erroneously, an appeal lay to this Court within S. 9 of the Act and that in any event, this order was open to revision by this Court, the order being clearly without jurisdiction the order could not stand. We have already held that the order passed by Mr. Dam is clearly without jurisdiction as there is nothing to indicate that on the date when he passed the order in question he had the powers of a 'Revenue Officer' vested in him by Govern­ment as required by S. 2 (8) of the Act. In the circumstances we have no option but to set aside the order and to direct that the application filed by the respondent under S. 5 of the Act should be disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner or by some other officer competent to hear the same. There will be no order as to the costs of this ap­peal. (7) RAM LABHAYA J. : I agree. Appeal allowed.