ORDER:- This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, dated 31-3-1958 in Revenue Appeal No.60 of 1956 and the further order of the Chief Commissioner dated 1010-1958 in Revenue Appeal Case No.19 of 1958. 2. The petitioners are the widow and daughter of one Chauren Singh, who died in or about 1942. Chauren Singh had a son Udhob Singh, who died in or about 1943 leaving two sons, who are respondents 3 and 4. There was a land bearing patta No.85/427 in Imphal West Tahsil which belonged to the late Chauren Singh. The petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 are said to be in possession of the said land. In or about 1955, respondents 3 and 4 applied for mutation of the said land in their names to the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West Tahsil in Mutation Case No.722 of 1955. The petitioners objected to the mutation and the S.D.C. passed an Order - annexure "A" on 23-5-1956, allowing the registration of the land in the names of respondents 3 and 4 and the petitioners. The question for decision to be decided by the S.D.C. was whether on the death of Chauren Singh, the petitioners got any right in the property under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, which was extended to Manipur in 1950. If Chauren Singh had died before the said Act was extended to this territory, the petitioners will not have any right to the property. The S.D.C. stated that from the evidence adduced before him it was difficult to ascertain the exact date on which Chauren Singh died and further that on his local inspection of the land he found the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 in occupation by construction of houses and so he considered it advisable to register the land in the names of all the parties. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner against the order of the S.D.C. The appeal was heard and disposed of by the Additional Deputy Commissioner - Shri N.P. Watal on 31-3-1958. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner against the order of the S.D.C. The appeal was heard and disposed of by the Additional Deputy Commissioner - Shri N.P. Watal on 31-3-1958. He allowed the appeal holding that Chauren Singh had died long before the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act 18 of 1937 was extended to Manipur and so, the petitioners had no right to the property and he allowed the land to be registered in the names of respondents 3 and 4. 4. There was a further appeal to the Chief Commissioner by the petitioners, but the said appeal was dismissed on 10-10-1958 agreeing with the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner. 5. It is now contended for the petitioners in this writ application that the orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner in appeal and by the Chief Commissioner in Second Appeal were without jurisdiction. It was urged that under section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, which is in force in Manipur, the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeals filed before the Deputy Commissioner as the Appellate Authority was the Deputy Commissioner and not the Additional Deputy Commissioner and that therefore the order in Revenue Appeal No.60 of 1953 passed by the A.D.C. was without jurisdiction. It was further pointed out that under S.147, no appeal was provided for to the Chief Commissioner from an original or appellate order passed by an Additional Deputy Commissioner and hence the order of the Chief Commissioner in Revenue Appeal Case No.19 of 1958 was again passed without jurisdiction. 6. It may be mentioned here that the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation was extended to Manipur Valley on 15-5-1952 with certain amendments. In S.147 of the original regulation cls.(a) and (b) have been omitted and clauses (c) and (d) have been re-numbered as clauses (a) and (b) and in place of the Commissioner in the original cl.(c) the word Chief Commissioner has been substituted. Again, from the original cl.(d), the words "from orders original or appellate passed by a Survey Officer in a District not included in any division of a Commissioner" have been omitted in the new cl.(b). In other respects, the present cls.(a) and (b) applicable to Manipur remained the same as the original cls.(c) and (d) of S.147. Again, from the original cl.(d), the words "from orders original or appellate passed by a Survey Officer in a District not included in any division of a Commissioner" have been omitted in the new cl.(b). In other respects, the present cls.(a) and (b) applicable to Manipur remained the same as the original cls.(c) and (d) of S.147. Thus the position is that an appeal will lie to the Deputy Commissioner from orders passed by a S.D.O. and Assistant Commissioner or Extra Assistant Commissioner and appeals will lie to the Chief Commissioner from orders original or appellate passed by a Deputy Commissioner. It is seen that no appeal is provided to the Deputy Commissioner from an order passed by a S.D.C. There is again no provision for the appeals filed before a Deputy Commissioner being heard and disposed of by an Additional Deputy Commissioner. Further no appeal is provided for to the Chief Commissioner from original or appellate orders passed by an Additional Deputy Commissioner. 7. In answer to the petitioners case no written counter affidavit or counter statement was filed by respondents 1 and 2, the Chief Commissioner and the Additional Deputy Commissioner. But the learned Government Advocate argued the case as lit was only a question of law which had to be decided. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter statement opposing the application. 8. But the learned Government Advocate argued the case as lit was only a question of law which had to be decided. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter statement opposing the application. 8. It was not disputed by the Advocates appearing for the respondents that there was no provision in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation for an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner from the order passed by a S.D.C. What was argued for respondents 3 and 4 was that even the S.D.C. had no jurisdiction to pass an order of mutation registering the lands in the names of proprietors or land-holders succeeding to an estate under Sections 5o to 54 and S.126(1) of the said Regulation as the said section provided only for the Deputy Commissioner or for a Sub-Divisional Officer-in-charge of a sub-division to Pass such orders of registration and hence the order annexure "A" passed by the S.D.C. was itself without jurisdiction and that if the orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner in the appeals were going to be set aside, then the order of the S.D.C. registering the land in the names of the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 itself should be set aside as having been passed without jurisdiction,. 9. In support of their contention that an Additional Deputy Commissioner had no power to hear and dispose of appeals filed before the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners brought to my notice the decision of the Assam High Court in Dwipendra Ch. Chaudhury v State of Assam, AIR 1958 Assam 152, wherein it was held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner cannot exercise the appellate powers of the Deputy Commissioner under S.147 of, the Regulation, by virtue of a Gazette notification alone in the absence of any rule or provision which allowed the transfer of such a power enjoyed, by the Deputy Commissioner to any other subordinate officer and hence the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no power to hear or dispose of appeals. 10. 10. But before I go into that question it is necessary to see whether the original order passed in the present case by the S.D.C. was itself within jurisdiction, as otherwise if the orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and of the Chief Commissioner alone were set aside as without jurisdiction the effect will be to retain the order of the S.D.C. I am informed by all the parties before me that it has been the practice for long in the Manipur valley for the S.D.Cs. to exercise the powers under Ss.50 to 54 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. It is necessary to see how far this practice is in accordance with the provisions of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, if this practice is found to be not in accordance with law, then, the practice will have to be stopped and the correct procedure will have to be prescribed by this Court for the future guidance of the Administration. 11. Now when we turn to the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, we find that Ss.50 to 54 deal with the registration of lands in the names of proprietors and land-holders succeeding to an estate. Section 51 provides for application to be made to the Deputy Commissioner by a person in possession of an estate or a share therein, as proprietor or land-holder for registration of his name as such proprietor or land-holder. Section 52 provides for the publication of notice by the Deputy Commissioner calling for objections to the registration in the name of the applicant and fixing of a date for appearance. Section 53 directs the Deputy Commissioner to consider any objections, which may be advanced on the date of hearing and to hold an enquiry and to make an order directing or refusing registration. Section 54 contemplates that in case there was a dispute regarding the fact of possession, and the Deputy Commissioner was unable to satisfy himself as to the actual possession, he was to ascertain by a summary enquiry as to the persons best entitled to possess and to put the said person in possession. 12. Section 126(1)(c) vests in a Sub-Divisional officer (S.D.O.) the power of the Deputy Commissioner under Secs.50 to 54 in respect of registration. 12. Section 126(1)(c) vests in a Sub-Divisional officer (S.D.O.) the power of the Deputy Commissioner under Secs.50 to 54 in respect of registration. Section 129 says that the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer may refer any case to any Revenue Officer subordinate to him for investigation and report or if that Officer has power to dispose of the case for disposal. 13. Thus reading Ss.50 to 54, and Ss.126 and 129 together we see that only the Deputy Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer-in-charge of a sub-division have the power under Ss.50 to 54 in matters relating to the registration of lands in the names of proprietors or land-holders succeeding to an estate. There is no mention of any other Revenue Officer in the said sections, who has the jurisdiction regarding registration. At best, S.129 only empowers the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officers to refer such a case to a Revenue Officer subordinate to him for investigation and report. The final order has to be passed either by the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer. 14. A Sub-Deputy Collector (S.D.C for short) is a Revenue Officer appointed by the Government under S.124. He is neither an Assistant Commissioner nor an Extra Assistant Commissioner within the meaning of S.123 nor is he a Sub-Divisional Officer in-charge of a sub-division as defined in S.125. He is therefore not vested with the powers of a S.D.O. under section 126(1)(c). Section 127 provides for the Chief Commissioner to confer upon an Assistant Commissioner or Extra Assistant Commissioner not in-charge of a sub-division of a district, all or any of the powers conferred by or under the Regulation, on a Sub-Divisional Officer in such cases or classes of cases as the Deputy Commissioner may from time to time refer to them for disposal. As the S.D.C. is neither an Assistant Commissioner nor an Extra Assistant Commissioner, the Chief Commissioner cannot confer any powers on him under S.127. I may also add that as far as Imphal Division is concerned, it was admitted by the learned Government Advocate that there was no order of the Deputy Commissioner referring any cases or classes of cases relating to registration to the S.D.C. for disposal and there was no order by the Chief Commissioner conferring the power of a Sub-Divisional Officer on the S.D.Cs. I am further informed that at the relevant time in 1955 when the mutamuta case No.722 of 1955 was filed by respondents 3 and 4 the Imphal division had not been divided into sub-divisions and hence there were no S.D.C. or Assistant Commissioner or Extra Assistant Commissioner placed in-charge of any sub-division. The Deputy Commissioner was in sole charge of the entire division. It follows therefore that the only Officer, who could have exercised the powers under Ss.50 to 54 was the Deputy Commissioner, as there was no Sub-Divisional Officer in-charge of any sub-division in the Imphal division. The S.D.Cs. did no have the power to order registration under sections 50 to 54 in 1955 or 1956 when the mutation case was filed. It is clear therefore that the order passed by the S.D.C. on 23-5-1956 in Mutation Case No.722 of 1955 directing the registration in the names of the petitioners and respondents 3 an 4 was entirely without jurisdiction, as the Deputy Commissioner alone could have passed such an order. 15. The question now is whether the order of the S.D.C. dated 23-5-1956 can be interfered with in this writ, as the petitioners have not challenged the said order of the S.D.C. in the present writ. In fact, what they want is that the further orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner in appeal and second appeal should be set aside, so that the order of the S.D.C. may be restored. That would be allowing an illegal order passed without any jurisdiction to stand if the petitioners succeed in this writ in getting the orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner set aside. When in the course of the proceedings by way of writ or otherwise, it comes to the notice of the High Court that such an illegal order has been passed without jurisdiction, though it is not questioned in the writ, it is a case for the High Court to exercise its power of superintendence under Art.227 of the Constitution. Further in the present case, respondents 3 and 4 had questioned the legality of the order passed by the S.D.C. No doubt, it is true, that the order happened to be passed by the S.D.C. on an application filed by respondents 3 and 4 praying for registration. Further in the present case, respondents 3 and 4 had questioned the legality of the order passed by the S.D.C. No doubt, it is true, that the order happened to be passed by the S.D.C. on an application filed by respondents 3 and 4 praying for registration. Now they seem to concede that such an application by them did not lie at all to the S.D.C., but only to the Deputy Commissioner. I have also discussed the matter and I have come to the conclusion that the S.D.C. had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. I must therefore exercise my power under Art.227 and quash the said order of the S.D.C. dated 23-5-1956 passed in Mutation Case No.722 of 1955. 16. The effect of setting aside the order of the S.D.C. as without jurisdiction will mean that the order in appeal passed by Deputy Commissioner as well as the order in second appeal by the Chief Commissioner have also to be set aside under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution as they also must be held to have exercised a jurisdiction in the appeals which was not vested in them. It has already been pointed out that S.147 of the Regulation did not provide for an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner against an order of the S.D.C., but only against the order of a S.D.C., Assistant Commissioner or Extra Assistant Commissioner. On that ground also the orders in appeal by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner have to be set aside. It was accepted by all the parties that the orders passed by the S.D.C as well as by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner are quasi-judicial orders and not mere administratived orders. 17. In the face of what I have stated above, it becomes really unnecessary for me to deal in detail with the further question argued for the petitioners that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal against the order of the S.D.C. and that it was only the Deputy Commissioner, who had such jurisdiction. I have already pointed out that even the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction under Sec.147 of the Regulation to deal with appeals against the orders of the S.D.C. If even Deputy Commissioner has no appellate jurisdiction over the orders of the S.D.C., it follows that the Additional Deputy Commissioner cannot have such jurisdiction. I have already pointed out that even the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction under Sec.147 of the Regulation to deal with appeals against the orders of the S.D.C. If even Deputy Commissioner has no appellate jurisdiction over the orders of the S.D.C., it follows that the Additional Deputy Commissioner cannot have such jurisdiction. So, even apart from the further question whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner has the power to hear and dispose of the appeals filed before a Deputy Commissioner, it follows that the present order by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was beyond jurisdiction. 18. Even granting that the Deputy Commissioner had the power to hear and dispose of appeals against the orders of the S.D.C., it is quite clear that the Additional Deputy Commissioner did not possess such a power. An elaborate discussion of the question becomes unnecessary in this case in the face of what has already been discussed. It is sufficient if I merely indicate the real position under the Regulation regarding the position of an Additional Deputy Commissioner. 19. Annexure-I is the order of the Chief Commissioner appointing Shri N.P. Watal as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Manipur on 30-5-56. Annexure-II is the further order of the Chief Commissioner, appointing Shri N.P. Watal, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Manipur as Revenue Officer under Sec.124 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and directing him to exercise all the powers exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation subject to the control of the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur, under Sec.128 thereof. This meant that Shri N.P. Watal though, named as an Additional Deputy Commissioner was only a Revenue Officer appointed under Sec.124 of the Act and that he was subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner and subject to the latters control. 20. There is no provision in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation for the appointment of an Additional Deputy Commissioner. There is again no provision in the said Regulation permitting the Chief Commissioner to confer the powers of a Deputy Commissioner on an Additional Deputy Commissioner. Section 127, no doubt, permits the Chief Commissioner to confer upon an Assistant Commissioner and Extra Assistant Commissioner not in-charge of a sub-division of a district all or any of the powers conferred by or under the Regulation on sub-divisional officers in certain cases or classes of cases. Section 127, no doubt, permits the Chief Commissioner to confer upon an Assistant Commissioner and Extra Assistant Commissioner not in-charge of a sub-division of a district all or any of the powers conferred by or under the Regulation on sub-divisional officers in certain cases or classes of cases. Section 126(2) similarly, authorised the Chief Commissioner to confer on any S.D.C. all or any of the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under the Regulation. The Regulation does not permit the Chief Commissioner to confer the powers of a Deputy Commissioner or even of a Sub-Divisional Officer on any other Revenue Officer appointed under Sec.124 of the Regulation. It follows therefore that annexure-II which-directs the Additional Deputy Commissioner to exercise all the powers exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner, is an invalid order not permitted by the Regulation. If the Chief Commissioner wishes to confer any powers of a Deputy Commissioner on the Additional Deputy Commissioner, It can be done only by appointing the Additional Deputy Commissioner as a Sub-Divisional Officer within the meaning of Sec.126 of the Regulation. Or if the intention is to confer powers under S.127 in certain cases or classes of cases referred to the Additional Deputy Commissioner by the Deputy Commissioner, then the Additional Deputy Commissioner will have to be appointed either as an Assistant Commissioner or an Extra Assistant Commissioner. But annexures-I and II do not show that the Additional Deputy Commissioner was appointed as a Sub-Divisional Officer or Assistant Commissioner or Extra Assistant Commissioner under Sec.126 or 127 of the Regulation. That being so, the only powers which the Additional Deputy Commissioner appointed under Sec.124 of the Regulation as a Revenue Officer will get will be the powers under Secs.128 and 129 of the Regulation. They do not include the power to hear and dispose of appeals under Sec.147. It follows that the Additional Deputy Commissioner did not have the power to hear and dispose of the appeal No.60 of 1956, which was filed before the Deputy Commissioner. The order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was therefore without jurisdiction. This would mean that the further order passed in second appeal by the Chief Commissioner was also without jurisdiction. Both the orders have to be set aside. 21. The order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was therefore without jurisdiction. This would mean that the further order passed in second appeal by the Chief Commissioner was also without jurisdiction. Both the orders have to be set aside. 21. The order annexure B of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 31-3-58 and the order annexure-C dated 10-10-58 of the Chief Commissioner are, therefore, quashed and set aside under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution. As stated earlier, the order of the S.D.C annexure-A dated 23-5-56 cannot also be allowed to stand as it was passed without jurisdiction. The said order is also set a side not as a result of this writ or on the prayer of the petitioners, but in exercise of the power of superintendence under Art.227 of the Constitution. Under the circumstances of this case, I direct all the parties to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.