ORDER KHAN, J. 1. Jayendra Singh, minor son of Rajaram under the guardianship of Maharajsingh, presented an application to the Deputy Compensation Officer under Sec. 13 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition, Act (Act No. 13 of 1951), alleging that Mst. Dropadi, whose name was entered in the Khewat as the heir of her uncle Gambhir singh, is not entitled to receive the compensation because she had remarried, and, that he being the nephew was entitled to receive compensation of the disputed Zamindari. This dispute was referred to the Claims Officer, who dismissed the application of the minor. Against this an appeal was filed before the Revenue Board and the Board remitted the case to the Claims Officer for rehearing. Against this order, Mst. Dropadi has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the main ground urged is that the Revenue Board had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 2. Section 13 of the Zamindari Abolition Act runs thus;- Questions of title :- (1) If during the course of an inquiry by the Deputy Compensation Officer, any question is raised regarding the proprietary right in any property divested under section 3 and such question has not already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Deputy Compensation Officer, shall refer the matter for decision to the Claims Officer and the Claims Officer shall proceed to enquire summarily into the merits of such question and pass such orders as he thinks fit. (2) The order of the Claims Officer under subsection (1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision but any party may, within two months from the date of such order institute a suit in civil court to have the order set aside, and the decision of such court shall be binding on the Claims Officer, but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order of the Claims Officer, shall be final and conclusive. 3. 3. From the above, it appears that the enquiry by the Claims Officer is merely of a summary nature, and, though in clause 2 of the section 13 there is a prohibition against an appeal or revision from the order of the Claims Officer, yet another remedy has been provided to the effect that the aggrieved pa-son shall institute a suit in a civil court to have the order of the Claims Officer set aside, and subject to, the decision of the Civil Court, the order of the Claims Officer would be final and conclusive. Thus it is obvious that the appeal before the Board of Revenue was misconceived. 4. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner contends that section 29 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act has provided an appeal against the order of the Claims Officer and so the appeal to the Board was competent. Section 29 of the Act reads thus :- Appeal against orders of Claims Officer :-Any person aggrieved by an order of a Claims Officer may, within forty-five days of such order, file an appeal before the Board of Revenue which may, after hearing the parties, pass such orders as it thinks fit. From the perusal of section 13 and section 29 of the Act, the former prohibiting appeal and the latter providing for it, it would appear that they are inconsistent and in conflict. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner con-tends that section 29 has repealed section 13 (2) of the Act. But this apparent conflict is capable of being resolved, if we bear in mind that section 13 is under Chapter 3 of the Act and section 29 is under Chapter 4 of the Act. 5. In the circumstances, it is proper to construe that the Legislature intended that no appeal shall lie from an order passed by the Claims Officer under Chapter III of the Zamindari Abolition Act. But appeal has been provided from an order passed by the Claims Officer under Chapt. IV. In interpreting the Act in this matter, the conflict which apparently exists is harmonized Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1959 S. C. Page 198 (Sirajul-haq Khan and others Vs. But appeal has been provided from an order passed by the Claims Officer under Chapt. IV. In interpreting the Act in this matter, the conflict which apparently exists is harmonized Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1959 S. C. Page 198 (Sirajul-haq Khan and others Vs. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf U. P. & others) have observed :- It is well settled that in construing the provisions of a statute, courts should be slow to adopt a construction which tends to make any part of the statute meaningless or ineffective; and attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. In such a case, it is legitimate and even necessary to adopt the rule of liberal construction so as to give meaning to all parts of the provisions and to make the whole of it effective and operative. 6. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that in the instant case the order of the Claim Officer being under section 13 of the Zamindari Abolition Act was final and the Board of Revenue was incompetent to entertain an appeal against it. 7. For reasons stated above, we allow the petition and quashing the order of the Revenue Board restore the order passed by the Claims Officer. Having regard to the facts of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. 8. I agree. Appeal allowed