B. J. DIVAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the first respondent who is Deputy Secretary to the Government Revenue Departments on August 31 1971 on behalf of and in the name of the Governor of the State of Gujarat; the State of Gujarat is the second respondent herein. The dispute arises in the following circumstances. ( 2 ) SURVEY No. 1330 of Sandher village in Patan Taluka of Mehsana District was Government land and vested in the Government. Deputy Collector Patan disposed of this survey number to respondent No. 3 by his order dated May 3 1970 The petitioner came to know about this order of the Deputy Collector and preferred an appeal against that order to the Collector Mehsana. The Collector Mehsana heard both the parties and passed an order on October 23 1970 allowing the appeal of the petitioner. By that order the Collector directed the Deputy Collector Patan to dispose of the said land after issuing notices to persons in possession of the lands adjacent to the land in question as required by the standing orders of the Government. Against this decision of the Collector Mehsana respondent No. ( 3 ) PREFERRED a revision application to the Government of Gujarat. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat Revenue Department heard the parties and thereafter by the order dated August 31 1971 authenticated by the Deputy Secretary Revenue Department Gujarat State Ahmedabad the revision application was allowed and the order of the Collector Mehsana was set aside. Thereafter the present special civil application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner a against the order passed in revision. 3 In the order under challenge it has been set out that at the hearing of the Revision application it was contended that the Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector while exercising the powers under sec. 37 (2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code exercises the powers as Collector and hence appeal would not lie to the Collector under sec. 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The Government held that except those powers which were reserved by the Collector Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector exercised all the powers by virtue of sec. 37 (2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code exercises the powers as Collector and hence appeal would not lie to the Collector under sec. 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The Government held that except those powers which were reserved by the Collector Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector exercised all the powers by virtue of sec. 10 of the Land Revenue Code so when they exercised the powers of a Collector in view of a High Court judgment no appeal or revision would lie to the Collector against that order. It was on this preliminary point that the order of the Collector was set aside as being without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) IN Dallumiya Lalmiya v. State XII G. L. R. 668 a Division Bench of our High Court has held that when a Mamlatdar to whom the powers of the Collector have been delegated under sec. 12 of the of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) passes an order under sec. 37 (2) of the Code the appeal against such an order would never lie either to the Prant Officer or to the Collector himself but would lie to the Revenue Tribunal. It is common ground before me that be order in question was passed not under sec. 37 (2) of the Code but under sec. 37 (1) of the Code. It is also common ground that the order in be first instance under sec. 37 (1) was passed by the Deputy Collector Patan and controversy before me is within a narrow compass and that controversy is as to which is the forum to which an appeal would lie against an order of the Deputy Collector functioning under sec. 37 (1) read with sec. 10 of the Code. ( 5 ) SEC. 9 of the Code provides that the State Government may appoint to each district so many Assistant Collectors and so many Deputy Collectors as it may deem expedient. All such Assistant and Deputy Collectors and all other officers employed in the land revenue administration of the district shall be subordinate to the Collector. ( 5 ) SEC. 9 of the Code provides that the State Government may appoint to each district so many Assistant Collectors and so many Deputy Collectors as it may deem expedient. All such Assistant and Deputy Collectors and all other officers employed in the land revenue administration of the district shall be subordinate to the Collector. Sec. 10 in the first paragraph provides that subject to the general orders of the State Government a Collector may place any of his assistants or deputies in charge of the revenue administration of one or more of the talukas in the district or may himself retain charge thereof. The second paragraph is in these terms:- any Assistant or Deputy Collector thus placed in charge shall subject to the provisions of Chapter XIII perform all the duties and exercise all the powers conferred upon a Collector by this Act or any other law at the time being in force so far as regards the taluka or talukas in his charges :- the proviso to sec. 10 lays down that the Collector may whenever he may deem fit direct any such Assistant or Deputy not to perform certain duties or exercise certain powers and may reserve the same to himself or assign them to any other Assistant or Deputy subordinate to him. Chapter XIII of the Code contains secs. 203 to 212 both inclusive. Sec. 203 lays down that in the absence of any express provision of this Act or of any law for the time being in force to the contrary an appeal shall lie from any decision or order passed by a revenue officer under this Act or any other law for the time being in force to that officers immediate superior whether such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from a subordinate officers decision or order or not. If sec. 203 applies then the Collector being the immediate superior of a Deputy Collector an appeal against a decision of the Deputy Collector would lie to the Collector of the district. If sec. 203 applies then the Collector being the immediate superior of a Deputy Collector an appeal against a decision of the Deputy Collector would lie to the Collector of the district. It is contended before me that in the light of the decision of our Division Bench in Dallumiya Lalmiyas case (supra) and other decisions following that decision I should hold that notwithstanding the parenthetical clause in the second paragraph of section 10 subject to the provisions of Chapter XIII an appeal against the decision of a Deputy Collector would not lie to the Collector at all. It was contended in this connection that all that sec. 10 lays down is the statutory delegation of the powers of the Collector to the Deputy Collector. I would not have accepted this contention about the statutory delegation even if the matter were not covered by a decision binding upon me. However in Vishnu Dadu Lokhande v. Umabai 57 Bom. L. R. 816 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has interpreted the provisions of sec. 10 of the Code. That decision having been delivered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court prior to the bifurcation of the bilingual Bombay State is binding upon me and even if it were not binding with respect being in agreement with the ratio decidendi of that case I would follow it. ( 6 ) IT was there contended in terms as pointed out by Shah J. (as he then was) delivering the judgment of the Division Bench that sec. 10 provided for statutory delegation. That argument has not been accepted by the Division Bench. The contention before the Division Bench was that 8 Deputy Collector could not hear an appeal against the order of a Mamlatdar passed under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 and the question arose before the Division Bench whether the order of a Deputy Collector passed in appeal against an order of a Mamlatdar could be said to be final. After considering the provisions of sec. 10 of the Code the Division Bench observed:- An order putting an Assistant or a Deputy Collector in charge of the revenue administration of a taluka does not in our judgment impose any limitation as to the nature or the character of jurisdiction to be exercised by that officer. After considering the provisions of sec. 10 of the Code the Division Bench observed:- An order putting an Assistant or a Deputy Collector in charge of the revenue administration of a taluka does not in our judgment impose any limitation as to the nature or the character of jurisdiction to be exercised by that officer. It is only a condition on the happening of which the jurisdiction of the Assistant or Deputy Collector becomes exercisable. It is true that performance of the duties and exercise of the powers by the Assistant or the Deputy Collector is made subject to the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. That Chapter deals with appeals and revision and the effect of the parenthetical clause that the performance of the duties and the exercise of the powers is subject to the provisions of Chapter XIII is only to attract the provisions relating to appeals and revision against orders passed and acts done by revenue officers. An order passed by a Deputy Collector or by an Assistant Collector under any law for the time being in force is in the absence of any express provision of the Code or of any other law appealable or revisable in the manner provided by Chapter XIII. It is evident from sec. 203 itself that by an express provision made in the statute which confers powers or imposes duties the application of Chapter XIII may be excluded. In sec. 24 of the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 by sub-sec. (5) it is provided that the orders passed by the Collector in appeal shall be final and if the Deputy Collector passes an order in appeal under sec. 24 sub-sec. (3) that order may be regarded final. The Legislature having made the order passed under sec. 24 sub-sec. (3) of the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 final the incident of appeal which would have otherwise attached thereto must be regarded as excluded by express provision to the contrary. The effect of sec. 10 para 2 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code is that the word Collector as used in sec. 24 of the Bombay Tenancy Act must when the Assistant or Deputy exercises appellate powers be regarded as substituted by the expression Deputy Collector or the Assistant Collector. In view of these observations of Shah J. it is clear that when sec. 10 para 2 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code is that the word Collector as used in sec. 24 of the Bombay Tenancy Act must when the Assistant or Deputy exercises appellate powers be regarded as substituted by the expression Deputy Collector or the Assistant Collector. In view of these observations of Shah J. it is clear that when sec. 37 (1) of the Code speaks of the powers of the Collector and about the order passed by the Collector to dispose of the land referred to in sec. 37 (1) wherever a Deputy Collector or an Assistant Collector has been placed in charge of a taluka the words Deputy Collector must be taken by sec. 10 paragraph 2 to be substituted for the word Collector. This is not a question of a delegate of the Collector functioning but a substitute as provided by the statute functioning under sec. 37 (1 ). The very section which provides for this substitution of the Collector by Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector also by the parenthetical clause provides that the orders of the Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector are subject to appeal or revision of the immediate superior of the Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector and by virtue of sec. 9 second paragraph it is clear that the immediate superior of the Deputy Collector is the Collector and none else. ( 7 ) UNDER these circumstances if the provisions of Chapter XIII apply and if there is nothing in the Code or any other law for the time being in force to the contrary an appeal would lie against the order of the Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector passed under sec. 37 (1) of the Code to the Collector. ( 8 ) PROVISIONS of sec. 8a of the Code provide for appointment and functioning of Additional Collector. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 8a provides that an Additional Collector appointed under sub-sec. (1) shall not be subordinate to the Collector except in such matter as the State Government may by a general or special order specify in this behalf Thus whereas an Additional Collector is not a subordinate of the Collector an Assistant or Deputy Collector by virtue of second paragraph of sec. 8a provides that an Additional Collector appointed under sub-sec. (1) shall not be subordinate to the Collector except in such matter as the State Government may by a general or special order specify in this behalf Thus whereas an Additional Collector is not a subordinate of the Collector an Assistant or Deputy Collector by virtue of second paragraph of sec. 9 is subordinate to the Collector of the district and if the provisions of Chapter XIII apply an appeal would lie to the Collector as the immediate superior of the Deputy or Assistant Collector. This is not a case where there is any delegation of the powers of the Collector as in the case of the delegation to a Mamlatdar under sec. 12 of the Code and it is well-settled that when an officer functions through a delegate he is himself functioning and therefore against the order of the delegate no appeal would lie to the officer of whom the other officer is a delegate. The decision in Dallumiya Lalmiya v. State (supra) is an application of that principle and J. B. Mehta J. delivering the judgment of the Division Bench has applied that principle in terms in para 4 of the judgment in that case. To my mind the present case falls within the ratio of the decision in Vishnu Dadu Lokhande v. Umabai (supra) decided by the Bombay High Court rather than within the ratio of the decision of our High Court in Dallumiya Lalmiyas case. ( 9 ) IT was contended before me that an appeal would lie to the Collector from the orders of the Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector only in matters of revenue administration. But it has been clearly laid down by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that an order passed by a Deputy Collector or by an Assistant Collector under any law for the time being in force is in the absence of any express provision of the Code or of any other law appealable in the manner provided by Chapter XIII. In the instant case there is no other express provision either in the Code or in any other law which takes away incidence of appeal from the order of the Deputy Collector to the Collector as provided in sec. 203 of the Code. In the instant case there is no other express provision either in the Code or in any other law which takes away incidence of appeal from the order of the Deputy Collector to the Collector as provided in sec. 203 of the Code. ( 10 ) IN these circumstances the conclusion arrived at the Government in the order dated August 31 1971 that the Deputy Collector exercises powers of the Collector and hence the Collector has exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal was contrary to law and an error appears on the face of the record. This special civil application must therefore be allowed and the order dated August 31 1971 must be set aside. ( 11 ) SPECIAL Civil Application is allowed. The order in question is quashed and set aside. The matter will now go back to Government for disposal according to law. There will be no order as to costs. .