JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioners filed an application u/s 9 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955 (herein after to be referred to as the Act) for a declaration that they were in possession of the disputed land on 1-7-1954: and also asked for relief of interim injunction. The defence taken by the landlords (opposite parties 1 to 3) was that the Petitioners were not tenants under them and were never in possession of the disputed land. The O.T.R. Collector who was a Deputy Collector decided the case in favour of the Petitioners. His order is Annexure-1 dated 20th of November, 1961. Opposite parties to 3 filed an appeal before the A.D.M. (Executive) who remanded the case by his order (Annexure-2) dated 5-8-1964. After remand the case was heard by an O.T.R. Collector who was a Sub-Deputy Collector. He dismissed the application of the Petitioners by his order (Annexure-3) dated 28-9-1965. Against this order the Petitioners preferred an appeal before the S.D.O. who allowed their appeal by his order (Annexure-4) dated 20th of August, 1969. Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed a revision before the Collector who set aside annexure-4 by his order (Annexure-5) dated 19-5-1970. The writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing Annexure-5 as being without jurisdiction. 2. The first question for determination is the nature of right that was in dispute. As has already been indicated the Petitioners claimed possession on 1st July 1954 on the basis that they were tenants of the disputed land. The landlords, on the other hand, asserted that the Petitioners had no tenancy right. Thus, in essence, the dispute was whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant. such a dispute comes directly with the ambit of Section 11-A(1) of the Act. 3. The order in Annexure-3 was passed on 28.9.1965. The amending Act incorporating Section 11-A came into force on 30th of October 1962. The forum of appeal must accordingly be perused in accordance with the provision of Section 11-A(4)(a) which says that if the order was made by any officer below the rank of a Collector of a district, on appeal from any order made under Sub-section (1) shall lie to the Collector of the district having jurisdiction. The appeal was preferred by the Petitioners against Annexure-3 to the S.D.O. who had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The appeal was preferred by the Petitioners against Annexure-3 to the S.D.O. who had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Annexure-4 was, therefore, passed by an authority having no jurisdiction and as such was a nullity. 4. Equally Annexure-5 is also without jurisdiction. If the appeal would have been filed before the Collector and the Collector?s order would have been adverse to opposite parties 1 to 3, they would have filed a second appeal before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and against his order a revision lies to the High Court. Thus, no revision lay to the Collector and he had no jurisdiction to pass the order Annexure-5 setting aside Annexure-4. 5. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that Annexure-5 is liable to be quashed. Mr. Ram contends that in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution we would merely quash Annexure-5 and leave Annexure 4 & it is since opposite parties 1 to 3 did not file any writ application in time assailing Annexure-4 though subsequently on 27-1-19711 more than one and a half years after, they have filed O.J.C. No. 118 of 1971 for quashing Annexure-4 We would examine this contention without making a reference to O.J.C. No. 118 of 1971. 6. Law is well settled that this Court is not bound to invoke its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to mete out injustice to a party. Once it has come to our notice that Annexure-4 is an order passed by an authority having jurisdiction, we cannot ignore such fact and leave it where it is. If we quash Annexure-5 without touching Annexure. 4 we would be exercising a jurisdiction in favour of a party who was guilty of obtaining an order from an authority having no jurisdiction. We, therefore, find no substance in Mr. Ram?s contention that we would only quash Annexure-5 leaving Annexure-4 as it is. 7. The net result, therefore, is that both Annexures 4 and 5 must be quashed as having been passed without jurisdiction. The final order that would stand is Annexure-3 dated 28-9-1965. 8. Mr. Ram contends that the tenants would be very much prejudiced if Annexure-3 stands. We are not concerned with the question of prejudice when the parties exercised their rights under law and did not pursue their remedy in the appropriate forum. The final order that would stand is Annexure-3 dated 28-9-1965. 8. Mr. Ram contends that the tenants would be very much prejudiced if Annexure-3 stands. We are not concerned with the question of prejudice when the parties exercised their rights under law and did not pursue their remedy in the appropriate forum. It is, however, open to the tenants to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act if so advised. We, however, express no opinion as to whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply to such a case. 9. In the result, the writ application fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. K.B. Panda, J. 10. I, agree.