JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the sole question for decision is whether the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law by rejecting two revision petitions (revision cases Nos. 15 and 16 of 1958-59) filed by the Petitioner on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain those petitions. 2. On a requisition filed by the income tax Officer, Cuttack, before the Certificate Officer, Cuttack two certificate cases (Nos. 65-M of 195-53 and 53-M of 1955-50) were started against the Petitioner. He objected to the issue of the certificate, but his objection was over ruled by the Certificate Officer. He then preferred two certificate appeals, No. 45 of 1956-57 and 13 of 1956-57, before the Deputy Collector with Appellate Powers who, by his order dated 11th November 1957 and 18th April 1957 respectively dismissed the same. The Petitioner thereafter filed two revision petitions, numbered as revision case No. 69 of 1957-58 and 18 of 1957-58 before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Orissa, who by his order dated 7th July 1953 dismissed both the petitions. Thereafter, he filed two revision petitions before the Board of Revenue (Revision cases 15 and 16 of 1958-59) which were rejected by the Member on the 14th February 1959, with the following order: Under the rules of the Board of Revenue Act the full powers of the Board of Revenue have been given to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. Revision therefore does not lie before this Court. Rejected as this Court has no jurisdiction. 3. The Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (Bihar and Orissa Act IV), 1914, continues to be in force in Orissa subject to such adaptations and modifications as have become necessary consequent on the re-constitution of superior revenue authorities from time to time since the formation of the new Province of Orissa on the 1st April 1936. u/s 60(1) of that Act an appeal lay from an original order made by a Certificate Officer not being a Collector, to the Collector, and from an original order made by a Collector, to the Commissioner of the Division. The expression "Collector" here includes not only the District Collector but also a subordinate revenue officer who may be empowered u/s 60(3) to exercise the powers of a Collector. The expression "Collector" here includes not only the District Collector but also a subordinate revenue officer who may be empowered u/s 60(3) to exercise the powers of a Collector. There was no further appeal from the appellate order of the Collector, Section 62 of the Act is as follows: The Collector may revise any order passed by a certificate officer, Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector under this Act; The Commissioner may revise any, order passed by a Collector, under this Act; The Board of Revenue may revise any order passed by the Commissioner under this Act. Thus, the Commissioner of a Division, in the old province of Bihar and Orissa, was conferred revisional jurisdiction over the appellate order passed by a Collector under this Act, but if the Collector passed an original order, then, by virtue of Section 60(1)(b), the Commissioner was the appellate authority. It would thus appear that the Commissioner of a Division may be either an appellate authority or a revisional authority, over an original or appellate order passed by a Collector. The Board of Revenue was conferred revisional jurisdiction against any order passed by the Commissioner either as an Appellate authority or as a revisional authority as aforesaid. This power of revision was distinct from the power of review conferred by Section 63 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, by which any order passed under the Act could be reviewed by the Officer who made the order or by his successor in office on account of a mistake or error in the making of the certificate or in the course of any proceeding under the Act. 4. Prior to the 1st April, 1936 when North Orissa was a part of the old Province of Bihar and Orissa there was a Commissioner of Orissa Division at Cuttack and there was also a Board of Revenue at Patna and consequently there was no difficulty in these two authorities exercising their powers of revision u/s 60 of the Act. But from the 1st April 136 when a separate province of Orissa was formed a new superior authority known as the Revenue Commissioner, Orissa was created and paragraph 16 of the Govt. But from the 1st April 136 when a separate province of Orissa was formed a new superior authority known as the Revenue Commissioner, Orissa was created and paragraph 16 of the Govt. of India (Constitution of Orissa Order) 1930, authorised the Governor to assign to him such functions as he may deem fit and further stated that "any provision in force immediately before the appointed day contained in or made under any enactment shall have effect accordingly." In exercise of the powers conferred by this paragraph, the Governor of Orissa by Notification No. 22 dated the 1st April, 1936 assigned to the Revenue Commissioner all the powers not only of the Commissioner of a Division but also of the Board of Revenue for Bihar and Orissa exercisable under any enactment for the time being in force. Consequently, from the 1st April, 1936 the Revenue Commissioner took the place of the old Commissioner of Orissa Division and also of the Board of Revenue for Bihar and Orissa so far as the exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 62 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 was concerned and he was the sale authority for revising the appellate orders of the Collector under that Act. 5. In 1951, the Orissa Legislature passed the Board of Revenue Act (Orissa Act XXIII of 151) by which the post of Revenue Commissioner was abolished and the Board of Revenue was revived with three Members. By Section 10 of that Act the Board of Revenue was conferred all the original, appellate and other jurisdiction that was exercisable under the law for the time being in force by the Revenue Commissioner. Hence from the date of commencement of that Act, namely, 31st July 1951, the Orissa Board of Revenue became the revising authority over the appellate orders of the Collector and the allocation of functions amongst the three Members of the Board was a matter of detail, to be dealt with by Rules under the Act. On the 20th August 1957, the Orissa Legislature passed another Act known as the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Act, 1957 (Orissa Act XIX of 1957) by which the former post of Commissioner, Orissa Division which was in existence till the 1st April, 1936, was revived and that officer was made the chief executive authority in charge of the general administration of the Division. The statutory functions of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner were described in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 of that Act as follows: 4. (2) The said Commissioner so appointed shall exercise in respect of his Division: (a) such revenue powers and executive functions as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Government from time to time; and (b) such statutory powers provided in different statutes, to be specified from time to time in the schedule to be appended to the rules made under this Act. (3) The State Government may, by order in writing assign such, powers and duties of the Board as they may deem it necessary, to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. On the 14th November 1959 the Orissa Legislature passed another Act known as the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners (Amendment) Act, 1.959 (Orissa Act No. XII of 1959) by which Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the parent Act was omitted and clause (b) of Sub-section (2) was recast as follows: (b) all or any of the powers of the Board of Revenue under the Orissa Board of Revenue Act 1931, or under any other law for the time being in force as the State Government may by rules prescribe. This amendment came into force long after the date on which the Member. Board of Revenue passed his orders in the present case, namely the 14th February 1959, and as the amendment was not given retrospective effect the jurisdiction of the Board to entertain revision petitions should be decided in accordance with the law as it stood on the date on which he passed his orders, and not as it stood on the date on which the amending Act came into force Hence, by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Revenue Divisional Commissioners Act, 1957 (prior to the amendment) the Divisional Commissioner could exercise such statutory powers of the Board of Revenue as may be prescribed in the Rules and in the schedule attached to the Rules made under the Act. 6. In Appendix I attached to the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Rules, 1939, was given a list of the various statutes in force in Orissa in respect of which the functions of the Board of Revenue were assigned to the revenue Divisional Commissioner. Item 23 of that Appendix is as follows: The effect of the inclusion of this item in the. In Appendix I attached to the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Rules, 1939, was given a list of the various statutes in force in Orissa in respect of which the functions of the Board of Revenue were assigned to the revenue Divisional Commissioner. Item 23 of that Appendix is as follows: The effect of the inclusion of this item in the. Appendix is that all the powers vested in the Orissa Board of Revenue, by way of appeal and revision against the original orders of the Collector under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. 1914 would be exercisable by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. But there is no entry in the Appendix authorising the Commissioner to exercise revisional powers of the Board of Revenue against the appellate orders of the Collector. Full significance must be given to the words "original order" occurring in the entry 23. Moreover, there is no provision authorising the Commissioner to exercise revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue against the Commissioner order. Apart from the absence of such a provision, it win be unreasonable to expect that Government would empower a Commissioner to revise his own order especially when the power of review has been expressly conferred by Section 63 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. 7. The reliance placed by the Member, Board of Revenue, on the Orissa Board of Revenue Rules, 1959 is equally futile. In those rules also, there is no provision transferring to the Commissioner of the Division revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the Board of Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner himself. My attention has however been drawn to Rule 14 of the Orissa Board of Revenue Rules and to Rule 22 of the Revenue Divisional Commissioners Rules, 1959, which are as follows: Rule 14 of Orissa Board of Revenue Rule: In the event of any powers exercised by the Board under the laws, rules and orders in force but not specifically provided in these rules or the rules framed under the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Act 1957, it shall be the duly of the Board to report to the State Government for passing such orders of delegation to the Commissioner or otherwise as they deem fit. Rule 22 of the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Rules 1959: In the event of any powers exercisable by the Board or Commissioner, under the laws, rules and orders in force for the time being, but not specifically provided in these rules to be exercised by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner in regard to the items of duties and functions mentioned in Appendix I and II, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner shall refer the matter to the State Government and take orders for its disposal. We specifically questioned the Standing Counsel as to whether any order has been passed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by these Rules. He answered in the negative. Hence we must hold that the Member, Board of Revenue erred in assuming that his power of revision over the orders of the Commissioner conferred by the third paragraph of Section 60(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act have been delegated to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. 8. For the purpose of this application, it is unnecessary to consider what would be the legal position in respect of a revision petition filed after the coming into force of the amendment Act 15 139 (Orissa Act No. XXII of 1959). But I may point out that even under the amended Section 4(2)(b) of the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Act 1957 the Commissioner can exercise only such powers of the Board of Revenue as the State Government may by rules prescribe. Hence unless there is an express provision in the rules authorising the Commissioner to entertain revision applications against his own orders, he may not get jurisdiction. 9. There is one other point which may have to be carefully examined by the Member of the Board of Revenue while disposing of the two Revision cases. The Revenue Divisional Commissioner passed orders on the revision petition on the 7th July 1958. It is true that the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Act 1957 had come into force as early as 20th August 1957. But the rules framed under that Act came into force only on the 8th January 1959 and hence, on the date on which the Revenue Divisional Commissioner passed his orders there were no Rules under that Act. It is true that the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Act 1957 had come into force as early as 20th August 1957. But the rules framed under that Act came into force only on the 8th January 1959 and hence, on the date on which the Revenue Divisional Commissioner passed his orders there were no Rules under that Act. The Commissioner?s jurisdiction to exercise powers under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act and other laws in force, in the State, arises not by virtue of the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Act, 1957, but by virtue of the Rules framed thereunder as provided in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 thereof. Hence prior to the coming into force of the Rules, it is not clear as to how the Revenue Divisional Commissioner could exercise powers of revision. This question will also have to be carefully gone into by the Member, Board of Revenue. 10. For the foregoing reasons I quash the order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated the i 4th February, 1959 in Revision Cases Nos. 15 and 16 of 1958-59 and direct him to re-hear the petitions and dispose of the same according to law. Das, J. 11. I agree.