JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This special appeal arises out of proceedings for the cancellation of a Bhumidhari Sanad. 2. A Sanad was granted in favour of the Respondent first set on 30th November, 1953. The Appellant made an application for cancellation of the Sanad on 10th December, 1953. The Asstt. Collector allowed this application and cancelled the sanad by an order passed on 30th November, 1954. This order was affirmed on appeal by the Addl. Commr. and un second appeal by the Board of Revenue. All these revenue authorities have concurrently held that the sanad had been obtained by practising fraud. 3. The Respondents filed a writ petition in this Court which has been allowed by a learned Single Judge. It was held that by virtue of the amendment introduced by UP Land Reforms (Amendment) Act No. XX of 1954 which came into force on 10th October, 1954 only an Asstt. Collector of the first class has jurisdiction to cancel a Bhumidhari Sanad. In the present case the Sanad was cancelled by an Asstt. Collector of the 2nd class. The Learned Single Judge has held that such an Asstt. Collector of the 2nd class has no jurisdiction to cancel the Sanad and the order of cancellation of the Sanad was without jurisdiction and void. He repelled the submission that in view of the finding of fraud this was not a fit case for exercise of discretionary power Under Article 226 of the Constitution, by holding that the appellate orders of the Addl. Commr. and the Board of Revenue invariably sustained the finding of fraud on evidence recorded by an officer who had no jurisdiction to decide the case for cancellation. On this finding the writ petition succeeded and the orders of the revenue authorities were quashed and it was directed that the application for cancellation of Sanad be adjudicated afresh by a proper officer. 4. Till 10th October, 1954 an Asstt. Collector of the 2nd class had jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application for cancellation of a Sanad. With effect from that day however the jurisdiction became vested in the Asstt. Collector 1st class learned Counsel for the Respondents was not able to point out any material on the record of the writ petition to support the view of the learned Single Judge that the evidence was recorded by the Asstt. With effect from that day however the jurisdiction became vested in the Asstt. Collector 1st class learned Counsel for the Respondents was not able to point out any material on the record of the writ petition to support the view of the learned Single Judge that the evidence was recorded by the Asstt. Collector of the 2nd class after 10th October, 1954, the date when he lost jurisdiction over the case. 5. Against an order of cancellation of a Sanad passed u/s 137-A of the ZA and LR Act an appeal lies to the Addl. Commr. and a second appeal to the Board of Revenue. The moment the Asstt. Collector 2nd class passed the order of cancellation the order became appealable. The fact that the order of cancellation was passed by an officer who had no jurisdiction to do so would not render the order passed by him unappealable; and the appeal was in the present case taken to the Addl. Commr., who was a competent authority. The judgment of the Addl. Commr. could not be held void for want of any jurisdictional defect. In that event the well known doctrine of merger would come into play with the result that the order of the Asstt. Collector 2nd Class became merged in the order of the Addl. Commr. and then in the order of the Board of Revenue. In this situation the decision of the Supreme Court in Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others, AIR 1951 SC 217 is clearly applicable. In paragraph 26 it was observed that it is well settled that if a court acts without jurisdiction its decision can be challenged in the same way as it would have been challenged if it had acted with jurisdiction i.e. an appeal would lie to the court to which it would lie if its order was with jurisdiction. It was held that the appellate court in a case which properly comes before it on appeal is fully competent to decide whether the trial was with or without jurisdiction and it has jurisdiction to decide the matter rightly as well as wrongly. If it affirms the conviction and thereby decides wrongly that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try and convict it cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction and its order cannot be treated as a nullity. 6. If it affirms the conviction and thereby decides wrongly that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try and convict it cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction and its order cannot be treated as a nullity. 6. In view of this decision whatever infirmity there was in the order of the Asstt. Collector 2nd Class, it was cured by the matter having been adjudicated on merits in appeal by the Addl. Commr. The finding recorded by the Addl. Commr. could not be held to be without jurisdiction. 7. The Addl. Commr. had recorded a finding of fact that the grant of the Sanad was secured by playing fraud. That finding was accepted by the Board of Revenue. We are not satisfied that this finding of fact suffers from any error of law apparent on the face of it. 8. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and that of the Board of Revenue restored. In the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs.