These two applications in revision have been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 11th November, 1955 in a proceeding under sec. 4 (a) and 4 (b) of the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating Act, 1951 for the appraisement of crops and shall be disposed of by one single judgment. 2. The facts of the case are that the non-applicant filed an application before the Tehsildar Pokharan on 22.12.52, under sec, A (a) and 4 (b) of Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating Act, 1951 for appraisement of the crops, as the applicants were not prepared to have it done by the non-applicant. Upon this after giving the usual notice etc. the Tehsildar made the appraisement of the crops and prepared a khasra for the same. He also heard the objections of the parties and decided that the applicants were liable to pay rent to the non-applicants in accordance with the valuation of the produce appraised by the Tehsildar. Being aggrieved with this order the applicants went in appeal before the learned Collector Jaisalmer. It was contested by the non-applicants that as there was no statutory provision for appeals against an order given by a Tehsildar under sec. 4 (a) and 4 (b) of the said Act the appeal filed by the applicants was not maintainable. The learned Collector examined the relevant provisions of the Act and held that the appeal was not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed the same. A second appeal was filed before the learned Additional Commissioner and he also came to the conclusion that in the absence of any specific provision for appeals in the Act, the order given by the Tehsildar under sec. 4 (a) and 4 (b) of the Act was not appealable. He, therefore, also dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision before the Board. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the relevant sections of the Act on the subject. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no statutory provision in the Act about the filing of appeals in respect of matters arising out of an order by a Tehsildar under sec. 4(a) and 4 (b) of the Act. He, however, contends that the Board of Revenue being the highest court on the revenue side could entertain a revision application in the exercise of its power under sec. 4(a) and 4 (b) of the Act. He, however, contends that the Board of Revenue being the highest court on the revenue side could entertain a revision application in the exercise of its power under sec. 11 (2) of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949, or its inherent powers under sec. 151 of the C. P. C. to examine the propriety of the order of the lower courts. The learned counsel for the opposite party however stressed that although the Board was the highest court of appeal, revision and reference it has no jurisdiction, whatsoever to entertain a revision application in a case of this nature either in the exercise of its inherent powers under sec. 151, C.P.C. or under sec. 11 (2) of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949. In support of this contention he has relied on a decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Moti Singh vs. Revenue Board, dated 5th May, 1952, (D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 74 of 1951, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India). In that case their Lordships held that the Board of Revenue being the highest court of appeal, revision and reference could exercise its judicial jurisdiction under sec. 11 (i) of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949, only in respect of types of cases which were defined in the schedules to the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. It was also held that besides judicial powers the Board had also what may be called executive powers under sec. 11 (2) of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949, which authorises the Board to exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be entrusted from time to time to it by the Government or as are conferred or imposed on the Board by or under any law for the time being in force. Since the type of the case referred to in the decision of the Honble High Court was not to be found in any of the Schedules of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act or any other unrepealed enactment of the covenanting State nor was it a case in which the Board was to exercise its jurisdiction and a writ was issued. 4. I have examined the facts of the present case in the light of the above dicision of the Hihg Court. 4. I have examined the facts of the present case in the light of the above dicision of the Hihg Court. Sec. 4(a) of the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating Act of 1951 lays down:— "When the rent is payable by a division of the produce or is based on an estimate or appraisement of the crop.....the Tehsildar may, on estimate or appraisement." Sec. 4(b) reads as below:— (2) "If the Tehsildar decides himself to make the division, estimate or appraisement applied for, he shall proceed to the place specified in the notice issued under sub-sec. (1) on the date fixed, shall hear the parties and record their objections and shall inspect the produce or the crop, as the case may be." (3) The Tehsildar shall then decide all objections and shall in the case of a division of the produce, divide such manner as he thinks best and most equitable.....determine the amount to be paid and pass an order for payment of such amount and costs if any." 5. In the case before me the Tehsildar instead of deputing an officer himself went to the villages to make the estimate or appraisement of the crop under dispute and he determined the amount to be paid and passed an order for the payment of the same. No appeal from an order of this nature given by the Tehsildar has been provided in the Rajasthan produce Rent Regulating Act, 1951. An application of this type is also not provided in any of the schedules of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act or the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Under Art. 1, Group E of the second Schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Proce-dure and Jurisdiction) Act, a provision however exits for an application to a Tehsildar for deputation of an officer to make division or appraisement of the crop etc. and appeals and revisions against an order on such applications are filed before the higher courts in accordance with the provisions of secs. 19, 20 and 26 of the same Act. In the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which has since repealed the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act there is again a similar provision under sec. 148 and the forum for appeals and revisions arising out of orders in such cases is given in secs. 223, 224, 225 and 230 of the Act. 19, 20 and 26 of the same Act. In the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which has since repealed the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act there is again a similar provision under sec. 148 and the forum for appeals and revisions arising out of orders in such cases is given in secs. 223, 224, 225 and 230 of the Act. There is, nowhere, any provision in these enactments about the filing or appeals or revisions against orders given by a Tehsildar when instead of deputing an officer he himself makes the appraisement of the crop and orders the payment of the amount due under sec. 4(A) and (B) of the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regu-lating Act. The learned counsel for the applicant has also frankly conceded before me that this case is not covered by any of the items in the schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act or the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He has also not been able to say whether there is any other law which gives jurisdiction to any of the lower-courts to hear appeals in a case of this nature. In view of these circumstances, I find that the Collector as well as the Additional Commissioner were right in holding that in the absence of any statuary provisions for appeal in any of the enactments in force the impugned order of the Tehsildar could not be heard in appeal by them. 1 also hold that as the type of the case given in sec. 4(A) and (B) of the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating Act, 1951 is not to be found anywhere in the schedules to the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Board has also neither judicial nor quasi-judicial jurisdictions to entertain a revision application. The question of examining the propriety of the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, by the Board in the exercise of its inherent powers under sec.151, C.P.C. therefore does not arise at all as the order sought to be revised is perfectly legal and correct for reasons already stated above. It is also not the applicants case that the Govt. had conferred or imposed any such other powers on the Board under any law for the time being in force as would justify it to exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial jurisdiction to entertain a revision in matters of this type under sec. It is also not the applicants case that the Govt. had conferred or imposed any such other powers on the Board under any law for the time being in force as would justify it to exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial jurisdiction to entertain a revision in matters of this type under sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance. The result is that both the revise applications stand dismissed as beyond jurisdiction of the Board.