JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution against an order of the Collector of Bolangir in O.T.R. revision case No. 3 of 1958-59 dismissing the revision petition filed by the Petitioners against the appellate order of the Additional Collector of Bolangir in Revenue appeals Nos. 26, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of 957-58, under the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 155. 2. Opposite party No. 1 was the zamindar of Loisingh in the district of Bolangir. Opposite party No. 3 is the son of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 is the wife of opposite party No. 3. The Petitioners' case was that opposite party No. 1 had leased out in favour of Petitioner No. 1 Judhistir Sa about 189-13 acres of Bhogra land in village Bakti for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53 by two lease deeds (Annx. 1 and 2) on payment of a certain stipulated rental. For the years 1953-54 and 1944-55 no lease deeds were executed but the lessee was allowed to remain in possession of the leasehold property and rent was received either by the zamindar (opposite party No. 1) or by opposite party No. 3. The lessee (Petitioner No. 1) was in actual cultivation of a small portion of the total leasehold property and the rest were let out by him to the remaining Petitioners (Nos. 2 to 18) for cultivation. It was further alleged that with a view to defeat the claim of the Petitioners opposite party No. 1 leased out the very same lands to one Bira Pad ban who, in turn, sub-let them to other tenants and thus attempted to disposes the Petitioners. There upon, the Petitioners applied to the O.T.R. Officer Bolangir in O.T.R. case No. 1 of 1955-56 and 4 of 1956-57 for protection from eviction saying that they were all bhag chassis who were in actual cultivating possession as tenants on the 1st July 1951 and, as such entitled to be protected from eviction u/s 3 of the Orissa tenants Relief Act. Opposite party No. 2 was impleaded as a party because as a result of a private arrangement between the zamindar (opposite party No. 1) and his son (opposite party No. 3) the landlord's right was transferred in her favour. Opposite party No. 2 was impleaded as a party because as a result of a private arrangement between the zamindar (opposite party No. 1) and his son (opposite party No. 3) the landlord's right was transferred in her favour. The O.T.R. Officer, after calling for a report from the Naib Tahsildar passed orders on 1st June 1957, holding that Petitioner No. 1 was a bhagchasi to the extent, of 12.35 acres only, and that the remaining area was also in the actual possession of the other Petitioners as bhagchassis and they were also entitled to protection. He prohibited opposite parties from interfering with the possession. He totally disbelieved the opposite party's case that the lands were leased out to Bira Pradhan and that the latter was in possession of the same either himself or through his sub-lessees. The aggrieved parties went up on appeal before the Additional Collector in Revenue Appeals, 26, 30, 31. 32 and 33 of 1957-58. The learned appellate court accepted the finding of the trial court so far as Bira Pradhan and his sub-lessees were concerned and held that they were not in possession of the disputed property, but he also held that the Petitioners failed to prove their possession of the property, observing that apart from the testimony of the Petitioners themselves there was practically no independent evidence. He came to a peculiar finding on the question of possession as follows: To my mind it appears that there is a long gap of obscurity after bhogra conversion proceeding and there is nothing convincing as to who were the lessees of the disputed lands. But in the latter portion of his judgment he has discussed the legal question as to whether, assuming that Petitioner No. 1 and his lessees were in actual possession they would all be entitled to the rights of a bhagchassi conferred by the Orissa tenants Relief Act. He thought that Petitioner No. 1 Judhistir Sa would be entitled to protection from eviction only in respect of that portion of the disputed land that was in his actual possession. As regards the remaining Petitioners he thought that they were in the possession as sub-bhagchassis or sub-tenants of Judhistir and that the Orissa Tenants Relief Act does not recognise the rights of sub-bhagchassis. As regards the remaining Petitioners he thought that they were in the possession as sub-bhagchassis or sub-tenants of Judhistir and that the Orissa Tenants Relief Act does not recognise the rights of sub-bhagchassis. Hence, he ultimately held that Petitioner Judhistir was entitled to protection from eviction only in respect of 12.35 acres of land which was in his actual cultivation, and that the claim of the other Petitioners must fail. He therefore modified the order of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act officer accordingly. 3. The parties took up the litigation before the Collector of Bolangir in revision. The learned Collector thought that as Court of Revision his scope for interference was very limited. He therefore addressed himself only to such questions of fact as gave rise to question of law. He did not fully discuss the evidence of actual possession given by the Petitioners, but merely reiterated the view of the lower appellate court to the effect that at best the Petitioners 2 to 18 would be merely sub-bhagchassis, under Judhistir who was a bhagchassi and as such they were not entitled to protection under the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. 4. The Revisional court has clearly misdirected himself. Section 15 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act does not impose any limitation on the powers of a Court of Revision. The language of Section 115 CPC is significantly absent. The question as to whether a court of revision exercising the powers u/s 11 of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act 1948 can enter into facts or else whether its powers are circumscribed to jurisdictional matters on the analogy of Section 115 CPC was fully discussed in a previous (unreported), decision of this Court in O.J.C No. 358 of 1955. There was a difference of opinion between the two Judges who heard that case, but ultimately it was referred to a third Judge (Hon'ble Das, J.) who by his judgment dated 21st February 1958 agreed with the view that the powers of the Court of revision u/s 11 of the Orissa tenants Protection Act were very wide and that court had jurisdiction to enter into facts also if it thought fit. It must thus be taken as authoritatively laid down by this Court that in the absence of any limiting words in the statute, the powers of a Court of revision under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act are not circumscribed by the limitations of Section 115 of the CPC Unfortunately, this judgment has not yet been reported and this was presumably the reason why it was not referred to by the lower courts. 5. Section 16 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act is in pari materia with Section 11 of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, and the aforesaid decision would therefore apply with full force. The Collector's misconception about the limited scope for interference as a court of revision should be removed. He has got extensive powers and may, if he thinks fit, even go into facts, examine the evidence on the question of possession and come to an independent finding of his own. 6. The necessity for thus examining the question of possession arises in the peculiar circumstances of this case. Bira Pradhan and his sub-lessees have not challenged the finding of the appellate court to the effect that they were not in possession of the disputed property. Admittedly, neither the zamindar, nor his son, nor his daughter-in-law, was in actual cultivating possession. Furthermore, it is nobody's case that such a large area of land remained fallow during the relevant period. Under these circumstances a Court of fact should not be over-critical in throwing out the evidence of possession adduced by the Petitioners, even though there may not be many witnesses to support their case. Hence the appellate Court said that "there is a long gap of obscurity after the bhogra conversion proceeding" the court of revision ought to have independently examined the evidence of possession adduced by the Petitioners and come to its own finding on the subject. 7. Both the Collector and the Additional Collector seem to be under a mistaken impression that the status of Petitioners 2 to 18 would be that of 'sub-bhagchassis' under Petitioner No. 1 even if their evidence of possession be believed. There can be no class of tenants known as 'sub-bhagchassis' under the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. A bhagchassi is a person who actually cultivates the land. There can be no class of tenants known as 'sub-bhagchassis' under the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. A bhagchassi is a person who actually cultivates the land. Hence, if after taking the land for cultivation from the landlord be sub-lets it to another person who actually cultivates it, be ceases to be a bhagchassi and becomes a landlord. The question as to whether his sub-lessee who actually cultivates the land is a bhagchassi or not will depend on whether his immediate superior landlord had the necessary authority, express or implied to let out the lands to him for the purpose of cultivation, or else whether the superior landlord of the lessor by his subsequent conduct had acquiesced in the position that the actual cultivator was a tenant and not a mere trespasser. Such acquiescence may arise by his express or implied ratification of the action of the original lessor or his demand of rent from the actual cultivator. There can there fore be only one class of 'bhagchassi' in respect of a piece of land. All the Courts are agreed that Judhistir Sa (Petitioner No. 1) had 12.35 acres of land and he is a bhagchassi in respect of that area entitled to protection. His case was that he took lease of the entire area of 185.13 acres and that by the authority to him by the opposite parties he sub-let the same to the remaining Petitioners (Nos. 2 to 18). He has also referred to certain acts of acquiescence and ratification by opposite parties 1 and 2 in collecting rent from him. He has also led evidence to show that he was working as the agent of the opposite parties for some years. Bearing all this in mind the lower court should come to a clear finding as to (i) whether opposite parties (Petitioners). 2 to 18 were in cultivating possession of the lands on the relevant date namely 1st July 1951 and (ii) whether their possession can be held to be that of a tenant and not that of a trespasser inasmuch as Petitioner No. 1 had either by express or Implied authority leased out the lands to them for cultivation or else that the opposite parties by their subsequent conduct in acquiescing in the arrangement made by the Petitioner impliedly recognised these persons as their tenants. 8. 8. As the learned Collector has failed to exercise his jurisdiction due to misconception of law regarding the powers of a court of revision and also regarding the status of the Petitioners 2 to 18 as sub-bhagchassis a status not contemplated by law I must set aside his order and remand the revision case O.T.H. No. 3 of 1958-59 for disposal by him according to law bearing in mind the observations contained in this judgment. I should point out however as Bira Pradhan and his sub-lessees have not challenged the finding against them on the question of possession, it must be assumed that they were not in possession at all and this point should not be canvassed further before the Collector. Similarly as all the courts have agreed that Judhistir Sa (Petitioner No. 1) was a bhagchassi in respect of 12.35 acres as originally reported by the Naib Tahsilhar this question also should not be further agitated before the Collector. The Collector should therefore confine himself to the claim of the remaining Petitioners (Nos. 2 to 18) in respect of the remaining portion of the land and come to a clear finding as to whether (i) they were in actual cultivating possession of the same on the 1st July 1954 and (ii) if they were in possession, whether it was that of a bhagchassi as defined in Section 2(1)(j) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act or of a trespasser. Both parties will bear their own costs of this petition. Das, J. 9. I agree. (Order set aside and case remanded for disposal according to law.)