ORDER H.R. Krishnan, J. 1. In all these petitions the prayer is that, in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Board of Revenue and consequently the subordinate Revenue Authorities, such as, the Collector and the Commissioner, should be advised by this Court that an appeal does lie to the Collector from the order of the Tehsildar under Section 38 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act (No. 13 of 1951) in view of the general provisions in Section 35 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act (66 of 1950), and that the decision of the Board of Revenue to the contrary is wrong. 2. The Board of Revenue has given the decision that an order by the Tehsildar under Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act is not appealable; a large number of appeals before the Collectors and the Commissioners were rejected and the appellants in those cases have all come up to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It appears that the present five applications are only part of a large batch of similar applications on the same ground and for the same advice to the Revenue Courts. 3. In brief, the legal position is that Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act does not envisage that the Tehsildar should pass any order in regard to the claim to Pakka tenancy by a tenant or sub-tenant. The only thing he is expected to do is to receive the deposit of the amounts mentioned, to post them in the appropriate Deposit Register, to notice to opposite parties of the fact of deposit, if so requested by the depositor on his payment of the proper fees; and to pay on identification, if the person in whose favour the amount is deposited wants to withdraw the deposit. These are all ministerial acts not amounting to an order or judgment as properly understood. Thus, no occasion at all arises for passing of any order properly so called by the Tehsildar under Section 38; so obviously no question is possible whether such an order is appealable or not. These are all ministerial acts not amounting to an order or judgment as properly understood. Thus, no occasion at all arises for passing of any order properly so called by the Tehsildar under Section 38; so obviously no question is possible whether such an order is appealable or not. Again, in principle an order under any provision of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act would not be appealable, except in accordance with the provision in that Act itself Certainly a general provision in another Act providing for appeals generally from the orders of the Tehsildar would govern the orders of the Tehsildar under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Act as well if there is no express or implied exclusion in the later Act. But just before the commencement of this Act, the general provision, "every original decision or final order", in Section 35 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act was amended to "every original order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder." Thus at the time of these proceedings there was no general right of appeal against the orders of Tehsildar. 4. This would have been sufficient for the disposal of these applications as being without any force However, I note that these applicants and the Revenue Courts themselves have been going round and round. Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act is touching a sentence here and a clause there, without understanding its real purport. So it will be helpful if the legal position under that section is explained. 5. Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act confers Pakka tenancy rights on tenants and sub-tenants without any proceeding and any adjudication. In both cases subject to certain conditions, and in the case of the latter, subject to a deposit according to the formula given in the section, the rights of Pakka tenancy are deemed to have been conferred; the proviso contains a caution that in certain circumstances the right will not be deemed to have been conferred. But no authority need enquire or investigate. The sub-tenant should satisfy himself and make the deposit whether the requirements for the automatic conferment of the Pakka tenancy right have been really fulfilled, it is not for any authority under this section to investigate. But no authority need enquire or investigate. The sub-tenant should satisfy himself and make the deposit whether the requirements for the automatic conferment of the Pakka tenancy right have been really fulfilled, it is not for any authority under this section to investigate. The Tehsildar comes into picture only as the authority with whom the sub-tenant or a tenant of the sub-tenant should deposit the amounts mentioned in the form. It may imply the ministerial acts I have already noted above, but it does not imply an enquiry whether the depositor is qualified or whether he is barred by the proviso. It may on a later occasion become necessary to ascertain this, unless of course, the other party withdraws the deposit or otherwise acquiesces in the conferment of the Pakka tenancy right. When there is no acquiescence there has to be an adjudication in time. As controversy may arise, either in the course of mutation proceedings under Section 86 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, or in course of proceedings for wrongful dispossession, or in a regular suit for a declaration of right conferred by this Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. 6. The wording of this section is clear enough, but any doubt is removed by comparing this with section 21 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act (28 of 1951), that came into force in November 1951 that is, five months later than the M.B. Zamindari Act 1951. That section speaks of the acquiescence of Pakka tenancy right by an application to the Tehsildar with jurisdiction in accordance with a prescribed procedure. After enquiry the Tehsildar has to give a certificate of the Pakka tenancy right, under Section 23 of the Act, and under subsequent sections take incidental or consequential steps. Nothing of this nature happens under the Zamindari Abolition Act. It may be that the procedure is similar under the Abolition of Jagirs Act, in this regard than that under the Zamindari Abolition. But we have to apply the law as it stands whether or not a more convenient procedure could have been devised. Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act being as it were purely declaratory, it may be necessary, where the proprietor or the outgoing Pakka tenant is not willing to recognise the right conferred by this section, for the persons deemed to acquire this Pakka tenancy right to initiate further proceedings. Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act being as it were purely declaratory, it may be necessary, where the proprietor or the outgoing Pakka tenant is not willing to recognise the right conferred by this section, for the persons deemed to acquire this Pakka tenancy right to initiate further proceedings. At the first instance, they might be proceedings for mutation under Section 86 of the Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, the word 'otherwise' in sub-section (1) being wide enough to cover a case of the right created by section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. It may be a suit in the revenue court or one in the regular civil Court. The point is that it cannot be a proceeding properly under Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, which unlike corresponding to Section 21 of the Jagirs Abolition Act does not provide for any application, or adjudication, or certificate of Pakka Tenancy. 7. As a matter of fact, in two (No. 2/59 & 13/59) of the cases related to the present applications, the applicants have asked for mutation. This cannot be under Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, but can be under Section 86 of the Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. The proper course for the applicant to the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar and other Revenue Courts themselves, in such cases is to treat such a prayer as one under section 86. Obviously, it will be more convenient to have this brought out on the applications themselves. When the Tehsildar passes an order in regard to the mutation, it is one under Section 86 of the Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, and not one under Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act under which there can be no application at all. An order which is really (though not expressly) under Section 86 of the Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, is certainly appealable under Section 35 of that Act. The cases Nos. 2 of 1959 and 13 of 1959 are sent respectively to the Revenue Board and the Collector for consideration of the prayer for mutation. 8. It is expected that the foregoing analysis will help applicants and the Revenue Courts themselves in the proper understanding of Section 38 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act. 9. All the other applications are dismissed. No order as to costs in the present circumstances of these cases. A.H. Khan 10. 8. It is expected that the foregoing analysis will help applicants and the Revenue Courts themselves in the proper understanding of Section 38 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act. 9. All the other applications are dismissed. No order as to costs in the present circumstances of these cases. A.H. Khan 10. In these five petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the common question is whether an order passed by the Tehsildar under Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act (Act No. 13 of 1951) is appealable or not. The question, being common in all the five petitions, they are being disposed of by a single order. 11. In case No. 99 of 1958 (Revision) decided by the Board of Revenue on 24-9-59, while considering the order of the Collector under Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, the Board has held that as no appeal was provided in the Zamindari Abolition Act against an order under Sec 38 of the Act, the order was not appealable. It also held that because Zamindari Abolition Act was a special law, the provisions of general law could not be made applicable to it. Since this decision, all orders passed by the Tehsildar under Sec. 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act have been held non-appealable by the Revenue Courts. It is contended that an order under Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act passed by the Tehsildar is appealable. 12. The relevant part of Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act, with which we are at the moment concerned runs thus:-- 38. Conferral of pacca tenancy right on tenants and sub-tenants:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Section every tenant of a proprietor shall be deemed to be a Pacca tenant of the land comprised in his holding from the date of vesting. (2) Every sub-tenant or tenant of a sub-tenant who deposits with the Tehsildar within the period specified in subsections (3) and (4) the following amount to be paid to the proprietor or tenant or sub-tenant, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a Pacca tenant of the land comprised in his holding. Till amount is deposited, his former status shall continue. Till amount is deposited, his former status shall continue. The right of becoming a Pacca tenant by depositing money shall firstly be that of the tenant of the subtenant, if any, and if he fails to deposit money shall be that of the sub-tenant:- (a) In a case of a sub-tenant of Gair-Maurusi tenant--An amount equal to the double of the net annual income of that land of the Gair Maurusi tenant. (b) In case of a sub-tenant of a Maurusi or-Sakitul-milkiat tenant-An amount equal to six times the net annual income of that land of the Maurusi or Sakitul milkiat tenant. (c) In the case of a subtenant of the Khudkasht or Sir of the proprietor-An amount equal to six times the net annual income of that land of the proprietor. (d) In the case of a tenant of subtenant--(1) If he is a tenant of subtenant in the Khudkasht or Sir of the proprietor--An amount equal to six times the net annual income of that land of the proprietor, out of which 85% shall be given to the proprietor and 15% to the sub-tenant. (2) In case of any other tenant of a sub-tenant--An amount equal to eight times the net annual income of that land of the original tenant out of which 85% shall be given to the original tenant and 15% to the sub-tenants (e) In case of a sub-tenant or tenant of a sub-tenant of either description mentioned in (a), (b), (c) and (d), if the well situate on his holding is a private one of the proprietor or tenant or sub-tenant, as the case may be, and no land of the proprietor, tenant or sub-tenant other than the land of that holding is watered from that well--By way of compensation so much of the amount as the Suba may assess after considering the points mentioned in Schedule III. Provided that a sub-tenant or tenant of a sub-tenant shall remain a subtenant or tenant of a sub-tenant as before in case of disability mentioned in Section 74 of M.B. Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007. He shall have no right to become a Pacca tenant by depositing the amount under this sub-section. 13. From the perusal of this section, it would appear that the Tehsildar is not required to do any judicial act. He shall have no right to become a Pacca tenant by depositing the amount under this sub-section. 13. From the perusal of this section, it would appear that the Tehsildar is not required to do any judicial act. His duty under Sec. 38 of the Act is confined to receiving the deposit from a sub-tenant and after making the deposit, a sub-tenant is deemed to have become a Pacca tenant. The language of this Section is rather unhappy. The expression "deemed to be a Pacca tenant" obviously seems to imply that something more will have to be done before he is accorded the status of a Pacca tenant. But the section is silent about it. 14. The proviso to this section says that, a sub-tenant shall not become a Pacca tenant in cases falling under Sec. 74 of the Tenancy Act. But it does not say who shall hold this and whether an enquiry under Sec. 38 of the Act is to be made Since the Section does not indicate it, it is obvious that it does not confer any jurisdiction on the Tehsildar to hold an enquiry and declare the sub-tenant (who may have deposited the money) to have become a Pacca tenant. In these circumstances, the question whether a sub-tenant has acquired rights of Pacca tenancy would have to be decided in proceedings other than those under Sec 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. It seems that after depositing the amount required under Sec. 38, the sub-tenant shall have to apply for the mutation of his name in the revenue papers under Sec 86 of the M.B. Tenancy Act and thus at this juncture the Tehsildar becomes competent to investigate whether the person making deposit has or has not become a Pacca tenant. 15. The Learned Counsel for the opponent Mr. Bajpai has submitted this Sec 21 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act (Act No. 8 of 1951) has a similar provision in which it is laid down that the sub tenant may apply to Tehsildar for acquiring the rights of a Pacca tenancy in his holding. Thus Sec. 21 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act confers jurisdiction on the Tehsildar to conduct an enquiry and declare whether the subtenant has acquired the right of Pacca tenancy or not. Thus Sec. 21 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act confers jurisdiction on the Tehsildar to conduct an enquiry and declare whether the subtenant has acquired the right of Pacca tenancy or not. It is contended that Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act is very differently worded and an Act or statute has to be interpreted according to its wording. There is much force in the contention and after giving the matter my careful consideration, I have no hesitation in holding that Sec, 38 confers upon the Tehsildar no powers to decide whether the sub-tenant has or has not acquired rights of Pacca tenancy. The duty of the Tehsildar in receiving the deposit is administrative in nature and he does not perform any judicial function. 16. Having thus interpreted Sec 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, let us now individually consider the applications before us. 17. In applications Nos. 13/59 and 2/59, the sub-tenant has not merely deposited the money but he has also made a prayer to the Tehsildar for the mutation of his name in the Revenue Papers. The latter request gives a different complexion to the proceedings. Such an application is not merely one under section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act, but in addition to it, it is also an application under section 86 of the M.B. Tenancy Act for mutation of names. Such an application is of composite nature and the Tehsildar is certainly competent to enquire whether by depositing money under section 38, the subtenant has acquired the rights of a Pacca tenant or not. This inquiry of course will not be under section 38, of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act, but would be under section 86 of the M.B. Tenancy Act. In deciding the question of mutation, he shall bear in mind the provisions of section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act and would see whether under section 38, the sub-tenant who is deemed to have become a Pacca tenant has or has not in fact acquired the rights of a Pacca tenant. If he has become a Pacca tenant, his name shall be mutated, otherwise, mutation would be refused. If he has become a Pacca tenant, his name shall be mutated, otherwise, mutation would be refused. In the event of an application of composite nature, the decision of the Tehsildar on such an application would certainly be appealable, not because, it is a decision under section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act but because it involves the question of mutation under section 86 of the M.B. Tenancy Act, which is appealable under section 35 of the M.B. Tenancy Act 18. From the perusal of the record of Civil Misc. Application No. 2/1959, I find that the application before the Tehsildar was both under section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act and for mutation under section 86 of the Tenancy Act. The Tehsildar ordered mutation, against which an appeal was filed before the Collector who allowed the appeal and cancelled the mutation. Against the order of the Collector, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner who allowed the appeal and ordered mutation. Against this order of mutation, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board dismissed the revision on the ground that no revision is competent under section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. From what has been said above, a composite application is both under section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act and also under Sec. 86 of the M.B. Tenancy Act. In such applications, an order of mutation passed is one under section 86 of the Tenancy Act and all provisions of Tenancy Act including section 30 of the Tenancy Act would be applicable. In this view of the matter the order passed by the Revenue Board is manifestly wrong. The order is set aside and the case is sent back to the Revenue Board with a direction that if the revision application falls within the ambit of section 39 of the Tenancy Act, it may be heard and decided accordingly. 19. In the case, arising out of application No. 13 of 1959, I find that it is a composite application also, and that the Tehsildar after making an inquiry refused mutation. Against this an appeal was filed before the Collector who dismissed it on the ground that no appeal lay. 19. In the case, arising out of application No. 13 of 1959, I find that it is a composite application also, and that the Tehsildar after making an inquiry refused mutation. Against this an appeal was filed before the Collector who dismissed it on the ground that no appeal lay. The Collector obviously treated the appeal as one under Sec. of 38 the Zamindari Abolition Act but in fact it was against an order passed under Sec. 86 of the M.B. Tenancy Act, on the refusal of mutation. Such an order is certainly appealable under Sec. 35 of the Tenancy Act. The record of this case should be sent to the Collector, Bhind with a direction to hear the appeal about mutation and decide it according to law. 20. Application Nos. 63/58, 64/58 and 16/59 are applications under Sec. 38 of the Zamindari Abolition only. The Tehsildar seems to have made an inquiry in the matter and declared the rights of the parties In the light of what has been stated above, the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry under Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act and all proceedings held by him are therefore without jurisdiction, and are being quashed. 21. In result the record of case No. 2/59 is to go to Revenue Board and the record of case No. 13/59 is go to the Collector, Bhind, with directions given above. 22. Applications No. 63/58, 64/58 and 16/59 stand dismissed. 23. The cost of all these applications shall be borne by the parties themselves. Application dismissed.