( 1 ) THE question that arises in this revision petition is whether a revision application under S. 435, Cr. P. C. is maintainable in respect of an order xnade by the Tahsildar, under S. 78 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act 1964 describing himself as Taluka-Magistrate. ( 2 ) IT is contended by Sri K. V. Lakshminarasimhan, Advocate for petitioners, that the Tahsildar being a Magistrate under S. 6 (a) of Crl. P. C. , the order passed by him is one revisable by this court under S. 435 Cr. P. C. As could be gathered from the records, the proceedings are initiated at the instance of the police before the Tahsildar-Magistrate under S. 78 of the mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964 which reads as follows:"recovery of value of trees, etc. , unauthorisedly appropriated:- (1) Any person who shall un-authorisedly fell and appropriate any tree or any portion thereof or remove from his holdings any other natural product, whether of the like description or not, which is the property of Government, shall be liable to the State Government for the value thereof, which shall be recoverable from him as an arrear of land revenue, in addition to any penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of this Act, for the occupation of the land or otherwise; and notwithstanding any criminal proceedings which may be instituted against him in respect of the said appropriation of Government property. (2) The decision of the Deputy Commissioner as to the value of any such tree or portion thereof or other natural product, shall be final. It appears that on 16-4-1969 the petitioners of Hinnakki village had cut and removed a branch of Baniyan tree situated in Government land without permission, in Survey No. 188 of that village. On a complaint by one of the villagers, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anekal, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners under S. 78 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Tahsildar-Magistrate. The petitioners as could be made out from the order, admitted having cut the branches of tree. Accepting their admission, the Tahsildar-Magistrate fined the first petitioner Rs. 50 and the rest of the petitioners Rs. 5 each. As against this order, this revision petition is filed. The petitioners as could be made out from the order, admitted having cut the branches of tree. Accepting their admission, the Tahsildar-Magistrate fined the first petitioner Rs. 50 and the rest of the petitioners Rs. 5 each. As against this order, this revision petition is filed. " ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the proceedings are taken under S. 78 of the Mysore Land revenue Act, it is contended by Sri Lakshminarasimhan, that the Tahsildar having described himself as Taluka-Magistrate according to him, the taluka-Magistrate being one of the Magistrates subordinate to this court, the order passed by him is revisable under S. 435 Cr. P. C. Looking into the provisions of S. 78 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, it is clear that the proceedings initiated before the Taluka-Magistrate are proceedings essentially taken under the Mysore Land Revenue Act. The mere description while signing the order as Taluka-Magistrate cannot be taken to mean that he was exercising the power under the Crl. P. C. If at all, this would at best be a proceeding under the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue act. But, by no stretch of imagination, could it be stated that he was exercising his power as a Taluka-Magistrate. Whatever may be the character of the proceedings it is obvious from the proceedings that the Tahsildar was exercising his authority under the Mysore Land Revenue Act, but at any rate not under the Crl. P. C. He cannot, therefore, be regarded as an inferior Criminal Court. The remedy open to the petitioners is provided in the Mysore Land Revenue Act itself by way of appeal or revision. That being so, no revision against the order is maintainable under S. 435 Cr. P. C. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .