JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - This is a writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the correctness of the order of the Deputy Collector, dated 31st July, 1951, passed in execution of some rent decrees obtained by the Petitioner against the opposite parties. The facts, in brief are these. The Petitioner obtained a number of rent decrees against the opposite parties and put them in execution. The holdings of the opposite parties were advertised for sale, after due proclamation, and the execution petitions were posted to 4th August, 1951 for holding the sales. Meanwhile, on the 26th July, 1951 the opposite parties applied to the Collector under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the decrees obtained against them be set aside by his order dated the 31st July 1951, the Deputy Collector in charge of the execution directed that the sales should be stopped pending disposal of the petitions filed by the opposite parties for-setting aside the exparte decree. The Petitioner went up in revision to the District Collector, u/s 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The District Collector while upholding the order of the Deputy Collector directed that the opposite parties should" make a deposit of 10 per cent of the decretal amounts. Against this order the opposite parties went up to the Board of Revenue in revision again u/s 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act. Mr. Ramanathan, the Member in Charge, by his order dated 3rd January 1952, held that although the Revenue Board had no jurisdiction u/s 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act to interfere with an order already passed under that Section by the Collector, it could still interfere with that order under the provisions of the Orissa Board of Revenue Act (XXIII) 1951. The Member committed an error of record in thinking that the petitions filed by the opposite parties were for setting aside the "ex-parte order for sale". The correctness of this order of the Board of Revenue is challenged in this application. 2. Section 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act vests the revisional jurisdiction in the Member, Board of Revenue, or the District Collector, who may call for the records and pass such orders as may be proper. The correctness of this order of the Board of Revenue is challenged in this application. 2. Section 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act vests the revisional jurisdiction in the Member, Board of Revenue, or the District Collector, who may call for the records and pass such orders as may be proper. It is well established that the jurisdiction conferred by this Section upon the Board of Revenue is concurrent with that conferred on the District Collector so that, if one of these Officers exercise the jurisdiction, the power is exhausted. It was therefore not competent for the Board of Revenue, to sit in revision over an order already passed by the District Collector u/s 205 of the Estates Land Act. The Member however appears to have refused the correctness of the position taken before him, but nevertheless claimed jurisdiction to interfere under the provisions of Orissa Act XXIII of 1951. Before discussing whether he has any such power, or not, I should like to refer to Section 189(1) of the Madras Estates Land Act, which expressly says that "the District Collector or Collector exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act does so as a Revenue Court and not as a Revenue officer. Apart from the provisions at this Act the Board of Revenue has no power of supervision or revisional jurisdiction over the District Collector. I am not therefore satisfied that the Board of Revenue, as such, can interfere with any judicial order passed by a Revenue Court. Apart from this, I do not see any justification for the view taken by the Member, Board of Revenue, as the Orissa Board of Revenue Act (Orissa Act XXIII) of 1951, on which he relies does not purport to confer any such extraordinary supervisory power over the Courts subordinate to the Board of Revenue. On the other hand, Section 8(2) of the Act expressly excludes any such power. That Section is as follows: Nothing in this Section shall be construed as giving the Board any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior Court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revision. It seems to me that the Member lost sight of these provisions of the Act. That Section is as follows: Nothing in this Section shall be construed as giving the Board any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior Court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revision. It seems to me that the Member lost sight of these provisions of the Act. Section 8, as the marginal note itself indicates, vests the power of superintendence over Courts in discharging their administrative functions and Sub-section (2) expressly excludes the Board's interference with judgments of the Courts subordinate to it, unless the law vesting the jurisdiction confers power of revision or appeal. We are accordingly satisfied that the first point taken on behalf of the Petitioner is well-founded and that the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Collector. 3. The next contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is whether the Deputy Collector was right in stopping the sale. Chapter VI of the Madras Estates Land Act deals with recovery of rent by a landholder. The modes of recovery prescribed are- (i) by distraint and sale of the moveable property of the tenant (ii) by sale of the holding direct, u/s 111. (iii) by a suit for recovery of rent. Section 77 lays down the modes of recovery of arrears of rent while the succeeding Sections prescribe the procedure to be adopted in respect of each of these modes. Sections 77-A to 110 deal with the procedure to be adopted for recovery of rent by distraint and sale of moveables of the tenant. Sections 111 to 131 deal with the procedure for recovery by sale of the ryot's holding without recourse to a suit. Section 132 and 133 deal with the procedure applicable to execution of a decree for recovery of rent. Section 132 says The provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable as far as may be to the execution of a Revenue Court of any decree for arrears of rent. It would follow, therefore, that the procedure laid down in Sections 112 to 131 are the very provisions which have to be applied in executing a decree for rent. Section 122 deals with stoppage of sale and this provision is applicable to procedure prescribed for sale of a ryot's holding as well as to the procedure to be adopted for executing a decree for arrears of rent. Section 122 deals with stoppage of sale and this provision is applicable to procedure prescribed for sale of a ryot's holding as well as to the procedure to be adopted for executing a decree for arrears of rent. This Section gives the power to the Collector to stop the sale in certain specified circumstances-firstly if the landholder withdraws his application for sale and secondly if the judgment-debtor tenders the amount mentioned in the proclamation, the expenses and the costs of the sale, before the lot is knocked down. The selling Officer who is ordinarily a Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector shall then receive the amount tendered and transmit the same to the Collector. It is only when either of these conditions is satisfied that a sale can be stopped otherwise neither the selling officer nor the Collector has any power to stop the sale once the holding has been proclaimed for sale. Section 133 gives an additional power in cases of execution of decrees for rent. That Section says that the Collector on the application of the defaulter, before issuing an order of the sale of the holding or part thereof and on the defaulter's giving security for the amount of the debt, may allow the defaulter time to pay up the amount due under the decree, provided that the time so granted shall not exceed two months. It is needles to say that the judgment-debtors did not follow the procedure prescribed in Section 133. The order for sale had been made sometime prior to their application and the date of sale had been fixed to the 4th August. The Collector had, therefore, no power to stop the sale even if the judgment debtors gave security for the amount. The only way in which the sale could be stopped was by tendering the amount to the selling officer as provided for in Section 122. 4. We are therefore satisfied that the orders passed by the several Revenue officers, from the Deputy Collector upwards are not warranted by law and were made without jurisdiction. This application is accordingly allowed and the Deputy Collector is directed to proclaim the holdings for sale once again, and then dispose of the execution petitions filed by the Petitioner according to law. The Petitioner will have the costs of this application. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/- ( Rupees one hundred only). Narasimham, J. 5. This application is accordingly allowed and the Deputy Collector is directed to proclaim the holdings for sale once again, and then dispose of the execution petitions filed by the Petitioner according to law. The Petitioner will have the costs of this application. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/- ( Rupees one hundred only). Narasimham, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed