JUDGMENT : G. K. Misra, C.J. - Both the civil revisions arise out of the same case and have been analogously heard. Facts may be stated in brief to appreciate the points in issue. The disputed lands relate to 69.29 acres of Bbogra lands In Bhogra Khata No. 3 in village Keutipali in the ex-State of Boudh. Mhd. Yusuf Khan was the Sarbarakar of that village till 25.7-1951. On that day he filed an application surrendering his Sarbarakariship to the State of Orissa. Therein he stated that he was old and disabled and was unable to manage the work of the Sarbarakar. He stated that Somanath Prasad Misra (Petitioner in C.R. No. 295 of 1973) was his foster-son. He was desirous of gifting the disputed lands and Sarbarakari rights in Somanath?s favour. As the law was against it he surrendered the right in favour of the State. At the same time he prayed that the Sarbarakari right and the lands may be conferred on Somanath by the State. He further stated in the petition that his only heir was Abdul Halim Khan (Petitioner in C.R. No. 280 of 1973) who was his uterine brother?s son and that he made sufficient provision for Abdul Halim Khan by giving him lands in villages Ainlapali, Sargimunda and Bisimunda in the ex-State of Sonepur. Abdul Halim Khan made an endorsement in the petition Itself that he bad no objection if the Sarbarakari right end the rayati lands in village Keutipali standing in the name of Md. Yusuf Khan were settled with Somanath. Revenue Case No. 68 of 1951.52 was started on this application. Ever since then Md. Yusuf Khan did not function as Sarbarakar. Somanath Prasad Misra entered into possession of the disputed lands and functioned as the Sarbarakar. He paid arrears of land revenue of Rs. 1,788/6/- which was due against Md. Yusuf Khan and this was accepted by the State. He continued to pay the land revenue and function as Sarbarakar till the date of abolition of Sarbarakariship on 1.4.1966. On 8.1.1953 the Tahasildar made a recommendation for appointment of Somanath as Sarbarakar stating therein that Abdul Halim Khan had no objections. On 11-5-1959 a press report was issued by the Government of Orissa that Sarbarakari system will be abolished, Under a misconception of the import of this press report, Misc. Case No. 68 of 1951-52 was not pursued. On 8.1.1953 the Tahasildar made a recommendation for appointment of Somanath as Sarbarakar stating therein that Abdul Halim Khan had no objections. On 11-5-1959 a press report was issued by the Government of Orissa that Sarbarakari system will be abolished, Under a misconception of the import of this press report, Misc. Case No. 68 of 1951-52 was not pursued. Somanath, however, continued in possession of the Bhogra lands and discharged the duties of the Sarbarakar. The Orissa Merged Territories (VIllage Offices Abolition) Act. 1963 (hereInafter to be referred to as the Act) came into force on 4th June, 1963. By a notification issued under the Act Sarbarakari system was abolished in the ex-State of Boudh with effect from 1-4-1966. On the abolition of the Sarbarakari system Somanath filed an application on 8-4-1967 for settlement of the disputed Bhogra lands in his name in Sarbarakari Abolition Case No. 317 of 1966. Abdul Halim Khan filed an objection on 27-4-1967 and prayed that the lands be settled in his name. On 14-1-1969 the Amin submitted a report that Somanath was in possession of the Bhogra lands since 1951-52 and made a recommendation for settlement of the same in his favour leaving out 4.30 acres for Gramasasan u/s 5(2) of the Act. On 15-1-1969 the Tahasildar passed orders for issue of draft jamabandi in favour of Somanath. Accordingly draft jamabandi was prepared and issued in the name of Somanath. On 10-5-1969 the Tahasildar submitted the case records to the Collector for decision u/s 4(1) of the Act. On reference, the Collector passed final orders on 12-9-1970 dismissing the claims of both Somanath and Abdul Halim Khan and remanded the case to the Tahasildar. Against the order of the Collector, Somanath filed Appeal Case No. 23 of 1970 and Abdul H dim Khan filed Appeal Case No. 24 of 1970 before the Member, Board of Revenue who dismissed both the appeals. Abdul Halim Khan has filed Civil Revision No. 280 of 1973 and Somanath has filed Civil Revision No. 295 of 1973. This is how the matter has come before this Court. 2. The findings of the Collector were as follows: (i) Sri S.P. Misra paid the arrears. The rent-receipts filed to prove continuous possession of the Bhogra lands on his behalf might at best go to suggest that he tendered the dues on behalf of the recorded Sarbarakar. This is how the matter has come before this Court. 2. The findings of the Collector were as follows: (i) Sri S.P. Misra paid the arrears. The rent-receipts filed to prove continuous possession of the Bhogra lands on his behalf might at best go to suggest that he tendered the dues on behalf of the recorded Sarbarakar. In other words, he acted as an agent to the Sarbarakar. (ii) The status of the Petitioner in relation to the Bhogra lands can at best be in the nature of an inter-meddler or an encroacher and has no sanctity in law. (iii) The claims of Abdul Halim Khan cannot be taken into consideration for settlement of Bhogra lands as he does not appear to have been in possession of the Bhogra lands at any time. On these findings the Collector passed the following final order. In view of the reasons in the preceding paragraphs. I am of the considered opinion that the present case would come within the ambit of illegal transfer of Bhogra lands and the claims of the Petitioner S.P. Misra to be recorded as Rayat in respect of Bhogra lands in question should, therefore, be examined in this light. In other words, the Tahsildar should resume the Bhogra lands in question and proceed to take action in pursuance of Para 17 of Executive Instructions contained in the Sarbarakari Abolition Manual. The Tahsildar will take immediate steps to call upon the Petitioner S.P. Misra to deliver the Bhogra land in his possession within a reasonable time as may be specified in the notice. The question of settlement of any land on rayati basis need be taken up only after ascertaining the fact of actual possession by the party 1 parties concerned in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 5(1) of the Act. The case record is, accordingly, remanded to Tahsildar for necessary action. Sd. P.K. Patnaik, Collector, Boudh-Khondmals, Phulbani. 3. The Member, Board of Revenue, recorded the following findings: (i) There was actually no village officer legally appointed on the date of abolition of the village office. The surrender made in 1951 by the ex-Sarbarakar in favour of P. Misra is invalid in the eye of law Since the Bhogra lands which were granted to village office holder in lieu of emoluments are service lands and cannot be transferred or otherwise disposed of except to the State. The surrender made in 1951 by the ex-Sarbarakar in favour of P. Misra is invalid in the eye of law Since the Bhogra lands which were granted to village office holder in lieu of emoluments are service lands and cannot be transferred or otherwise disposed of except to the State. So the Appellant S.P. Misra who has not been legally appointed as the Sarbarakar has no locus standi to claim settlement in view of the surrender which is invalid and inoperative. (ii) Abdul Halim Khan has not been appointed as the village officer nor he was in possession of the land. (iii) The possession of any of the Appellants in both the cases can at best be regarded as possession of trespasser. 4. Before examining the correctness of the conclusion of the Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of the Act. 2. (a) "appointed date" in relation to any area means the date appointed in respect of such area by a notification under Sub-section (3) of Section 1. 2. (j) "Village Office" in relation to any of the merged territories specified in column 1 of the Schedule shall mean the office shown in column 2 of the said schedule in respect of such merged territories. 4. (1) If any question arises as to whether a person was immediately before the appointed date the holder of any Village Office the Collector shall aftergiving the person affected an opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry decide the question. (2) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector under Sub-section (1) may within thirty days of such decision prefer an appeal to the Board of Revenue and the decision of the Board on such appeal subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 shall be final. 5. (2) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector under Sub-section (1) may within thirty days of such decision prefer an appeal to the Board of Revenue and the decision of the Board on such appeal subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 shall be final. 5. (1) All Bhogra lands resumed under the provisions of this Act shall subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) be settled with rights of occupancy therein on a fair and equitable rent with the holder of the Village Office or with him and all those other persons, if any, who may be in the enjoyment of the land or any part thereof as his co-sharers or as tenants under humor under such co-sharer to the extent that each such person was in separate and actual cultivating possession of the same immediately before the appointed date. (2) The total area of such land in possession of each such person shall be subject to a reservation of a certain fraction thereof in favour of the Grama Sasan within whose limits the land is situate and the extent of such reservation shall be determined in the following manner, namely: 13. (3) Land in possession Extent of reservation For the First 10 acres ... Nil For the next 20 acres ... 5 percent. For the next 70 acres ... 10 percent For the next 100 acres ... 30 percent For the remaining ... 40 percent Provided that the area reserved shall, as far as practicable, be in compact block or blocks of one acre or more. 13.(3) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Board of Revenue in an appeal (a) under any of the provisions of this Act other than Sub-section (4) of Section 10 may, within sixty days from the date of such order, file an application for revision on a question of la w before the High Court; and (b) under Sub-section (4) of Section 10 may, within sixty days from the date of such order, file an appeal before the High Court and subject to the decision of the High Court the order passed by the Board of Revenue shall be final. Schedule (See Sections 1 and 2 ) Name of the Village, Name of the former (2) States ... xxx Officers (1) Sarbarakar xxx xxx 4. Schedule (See Sections 1 and 2 ) Name of the Village, Name of the former (2) States ... xxx Officers (1) Sarbarakar xxx xxx 4. Boudh xxx It would be noticed from these provisions that if any question arises whether a person was immediately before the appointed date the holder of any village office the Collector shall after giving notice to the person affected an opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry decide the question u/s 4(1). In this case Somanath and Abdul Halim Khan claimed to be the holder of the village office of Sarbarakar on 1-4-1966. "Appointed date" has been defined in Section 2(a) as the date when the notification u/s 1(3) was issued. In this case it is 1.4.1966. "Village Office" as defined in Section 2(j) read with item 4 of the Schedule refers to the office of the Sarbarakar in the ex-State of Boudh. The Collector decided u/s 4(1) after giving an opportunity to the persons affected and after holding an enquiry that none of the claimants was holder of the Sarbarakari right. Both Somanath and Abdul Halim Khan filed appeals u/s 4(2) to the Member, Board of Revenue. The decision of the Member, Board of Revenue is final subject to revision to the High Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13. Both the revisions have been filed under this sub-section. The revision lies only on a question of law. The scope and ambit of Section 13(3) is much wider than that of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Powers u/s 115, CPC are exercised when a Court subordinate to the High Court exercises jurisdiction which it does not possessor does not exercise a jurisdiction which it has or exercises jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The scope is very limited and it always pertains to the question of jurisdiction. Section 13(3), on the other hand, is not restrictive and is wider in scope. The amplitude of the power of the High Court is much wider and it can interfere provided the case involves a question of law. 5. Under the Act the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Rules, 1963 have been framed. Besides the rules, Executive Instructions have been issued. The terms, words and expressions used in the Instructions will have the same meaning as defined in the Act and the rules (see Instruction No. 2). 5. Under the Act the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Rules, 1963 have been framed. Besides the rules, Executive Instructions have been issued. The terms, words and expressions used in the Instructions will have the same meaning as defined in the Act and the rules (see Instruction No. 2). Instruction No. 17 runs thus: There may be some cases in which a person is actually working as Sarbarakar, Ganju or Gountia on the appointed day, but has not been formally appointed as such. In such cases, the Collector shall hold an enquiry u/s 4 of the Act and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the persons affected give his decision as to who is actually the holder of the Village Office. If the person actually working as Village Officer, is found to be the VIllage Officer u/s 4 of the Act, he will be entitled to settlement of the Bhogra land, u/s 5 of the Act. If he is not adjudicated as the Village Officer he shall be called upon to deliver the Bhogra lands in his possession within a reasonable time to be specified in the notice. The effect of such an Executive Instruction would be considered after the nature and incidents of the Sarbarakari tenure as it prevailed in the ex-State of Boudh is examined. 6. In 1913 there was a completion report of survey and settlement in the Boudh feudatory State. Before 1937-38 the Sarbarakars used to enjoy 15 per cent commission on the land revenue of the village when they used to collect rent from the tenants and credit the same to the treasury. They were held responsible for the entire revenue of the village. This system adversely worked against the Sarbarakars and it ceased to be operative from that year when Sarbarakars were allowed 5 per cent commission on the land revenue for performance of other obligations embodied in the record-of-rights of the State (see pp. 22-23 of the report). The record-of-rights (Swatwa Lipi) contains 22 rules (see pp. 25 to 32). Rule 22 lays down that the record-of-rights which was in vogue from Durbar?s administration uses words such as Raja Saheb, Durbar, British Government etc. which have become obsolete after the independence and merger and require deletion and that in substitution of those the word ?Sarkar? (State) should be inserted. 25 to 32). Rule 22 lays down that the record-of-rights which was in vogue from Durbar?s administration uses words such as Raja Saheb, Durbar, British Government etc. which have become obsolete after the independence and merger and require deletion and that in substitution of those the word ?Sarkar? (State) should be inserted. Rules 17 to 19 speak of the incidents of a Sarbarakari tenure. Rules 17 and 18 prescribe that a Sarbarakar is a servant of the State and is to be appointed by the State. Rule 19 contains six sub-rule. Sub-rule (1) lays down that if the Sarbarakar and his heir remain loyal and do not join or abet any agitation then his son or heirs would ordinarily be considered for being appointed Sarbarakar after him on the following terms embodied in Sub-rules (2) to (6). Those terms are: Sub-rule (2). During the currency of a settlement the Subarakar will enjoy the Bhogra lands of the village on payment of rent and he will be entitled to 5 per cent commission on the revenue of the village. Sub-rule (3). Bhogra lands are the properties, of the State. When a Sarbarakar would not discharge his duties his possessory rights in Bhogra lands would be extinguished. Sub-rule (4). Bhogra lands cannot be partitioned or transferred. They are not heritable. They cannot be mortgaged. No person can acquire any kind of interest therein. If the Sarbarakar is removed from his service or he dies the entire Bhogra land would pass on to the new Sarbarakar. It is not liable to be sold in execution of a decree. A decree for delivery of possession of the Bhogra land cannot be passed. There can be no acquisition of possessory rights in Bhogra lands. Sub-rule (5). If any Sarbarakar dies or is unable to perform his duties due to mental or physical disability, then he is liable to be removed. In his place his nearest heir would be appointed as Sarbarakar. If there is no such heir, a raiyat of the village would be appointed as Sarbarakar. If no suitable raiyats are found, then the State would appoint any other fit person as Sarbarakar. If the heir of the Sarbarakar is a minor, the duties of the Sarbarakar can be performed under the supervision of the State. Sub-rule (6). If there is no such heir, a raiyat of the village would be appointed as Sarbarakar. If no suitable raiyats are found, then the State would appoint any other fit person as Sarbarakar. If the heir of the Sarbarakar is a minor, the duties of the Sarbarakar can be performed under the supervision of the State. Sub-rule (6). If any Sarbarakar does not honour the rules in the record-of-rights and fails to perform his duties, then he is removable by the State or any competent authority appointed by the State. 7. Legal conclusions flowing from the aforesaid rules relevant to this case may be summed up: (i) A Sarbarakar is a servant of the State and is to be appointed by the State. Unless so appointed by the State no person can be a Sarbarakar. (ii) Sons or heirs of a Sarbarakar are not entitled to succeed to the Sarbarakariship on the death or removal of the ex-Sarbarakar as a matter right. The word ?ordinarily? in Rule 19(1) clearly shows that even though the son or the heir be loyal and does not take part in any agitation against the State, yet he may not be appointed as Sarbarakar. (iii) If any Sarbarakar is unable to perform his duties due to mental or physical disability, then he is liable to be removed. (iv) On his removal, ordinarily his nearest heir would be appointed as Sarbarakar. (v) If there is no such heir, a raiyar of the village may be appointed as Sarbarakar. (vi) If no suitable raiyat is found, the State may appoint any other fit personas Sarbarakar. 8. Facts of this case may now be examined in the light of the aforesaid principles. 9. Mhd. Yusuf Khan was the Sarbarakar of the village till 25-7-1951. He was physically and mentally disabled and expressed inability to manage the work of the Sarbarakar. His desire was that the Sarbarakariship and the Bhogra lands should be enjoyed by Somanath, his foster-son. He was, however, alive to the rules in the Swatwa Lipi that Bhogra lands were not transferable and Somanath could not be a Sarbarakar unless he was so appointed by the State. His desire was that the Sarbarakariship and the Bhogra lands should be enjoyed by Somanath, his foster-son. He was, however, alive to the rules in the Swatwa Lipi that Bhogra lands were not transferable and Somanath could not be a Sarbarakar unless he was so appointed by the State. It is on account of the knowledge that the law stood in his way, he surrendered the Sarbarakariship as well as the Bhogra lands to the State though he incidentally made a prayer that both the Sarbarakariship and the right to enjoy the Bhogra lands might be conferred on Samanath. The second part of his prayer was merely wishful and has nothing to do with the hard facts that he surrendered the Sarbarakariship and the Bhogra lands in favour of the State. Mhd. Yusuf Khan did not work as Sarbarakar even for a single day thereafter. Neither he wrote to the State that Somanath would act as his agent nor did Somanarh act as his agent. There is no document or evidence of agency. The conclusion of the Collector on this aspect is inconsistent. At one place he held that Somanath acted as an agent to Mhd. Yusuf Khan while at a different place he came to the conclusion that at best the possession of the Bhogra lands by Somanath was in the nature of an intermeddler or an encroacher. Theory of agency cannot run with doctrine of trespass. The Member, Board of Revenue rightly did not endorse the view of the Collector that Somanath was an agent of Mhd. Yusuf Khan. He, however, agreed that Somanath may be treated as an encroacher or an intermeddler. Both of them, however, acted contrary to law in holding that there was a transfer of the Bhogra lands and Sarbarakari right by Mhd. Yusuf Khan in favour of Somanath. In fact, there is no transfer and the lands were not transferable. The application dated 25-7-1951 did not purport to transfer the Bhogra lands. A transfer cannot be valid without a registered document as the lands involved 69-29 acres. The application dated 25-7-1951 is not a registered one. Such a transfer would be hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act. Both the forums below acted contrary to law in misconstruing the application of Mhd. Yusuf Khan. A transfer cannot be valid without a registered document as the lands involved 69-29 acres. The application dated 25-7-1951 is not a registered one. Such a transfer would be hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act. Both the forums below acted contrary to law in misconstruing the application of Mhd. Yusuf Khan. On the aforesaid analysis, I am satisfied that by that application there was a complete surrender of the Sarbarakari right and the Bhogra lands in favour of the State. Mhd. Yusuf Khan completely effaced hImself out by the surrender. 10. There is no dispute and that is the concurrent finding of the forums below that from 25-7-1951 till 1-4-1966 Somanath functioned as the Sarbarakar and enjoyed the disputed Bhogra lands appurtenant to the Sarbarakariship. He discharged the duties of the Sarbarakar and paid rent and received commission of 5 per cent from the State. To the knowledge of the State for a period of about 15 years he discharged the functions of a Sarbarakar and enjoyed the Bhogra lands. Doubtless, he cannot be a Sarbarakar without an order of appointment from the State. The proprietary title in the Bhogra lands vested in the State. Despite his actual functioning for such a long period of years and possession of the Bhogra lands, Somanath cannot be said to be a Sarbarakar on the appointed date. 11. On the application of surrender Abdul Halim Khan endorsed that he had no objection to the Subarakari right and the raiyati lands being conferred on Somanath. Ordinarily Abdul Halim Khan would have been appointed as the Sarbarakar by the State when Mhd. Yusuf Khan effected the surrender. But by his own conduct Abdul Halim Khan did not want to become the Sarbarakar and in evidence of his unwillingness he made the endorsement. Though ordinarily a son or an heir of an ex-Sarbarakar is to be first considered for appointment as Sarbarakar, a person cannot be compelled to become a Sarbarakar if he does not so want. By his own conduct Abdul Halim Khan intimated the State that he was not desirous of becoming the Sarbarakar after Mhd. Yusuf Khan surrendered the Sarbarkariship and consequentially not to possess the Bhogra lands appurtenant to the Sarbarakari right. This is how Abdul Halim Khan did not possess the Bhogra lands nor did he function or perform the duties of the Sarbarakar from 1951 to 1966. Yusuf Khan surrendered the Sarbarkariship and consequentially not to possess the Bhogra lands appurtenant to the Sarbarakari right. This is how Abdul Halim Khan did not possess the Bhogra lands nor did he function or perform the duties of the Sarbarakar from 1951 to 1966. On 1-4-1966, the appointed date, he was not a Sarbarakar. 12. Thus both Somanath and Abdul Halim Khan were not Sarbarakars on the appointed date and in this regard the conclusions of the Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue are unassailable. 13. If the matter rested here, the claims of both the Petitioners were liable to be dismissed. Executive Instruction No. 17, however, comes to the aid of Somanath. The Executive Instruction recognises two categories of persons who would be entitled to settlement of Bhogra lands u/s 5 of the Act. If a person was a Subarakar on the appointed date the lands would be settled with him. The second category of persons envisaged in the Instruction are persons who were not formally appointed as Sarbarakar by issue of an order of appointment but were actually working as Sarbarakar on the appointed date. In other words, not only a de jure Sarbarakar but also a de facto Sarbarakar would be entitled to settlement of Bhogra lands. If there is a de jure Sarbarakar on the appointed date the Bhogra lands are to be settled with him. In the absence of a de jure Sarbarakar the de facto Sarbarkar is entitled to settlement of Bhogra lands. 14. In this case Somanath was the de facto Sarbarakar from 25-7-1951 till 1-4-1966 and that to the knowledge of the State. He acted openly and not clandestinely. The Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue found that he should be treated as an inter-meddler of the office of the Sarbarakar and the appurtenant Bhogra lands for a period of about 15 years. When land revenue was accepted from Somanath by the State for possession of the Bhogra lands and he was allowed to do the duties of the Sarbarakar for about 15 years, he cannot be held as a trespasser or inter-meddler. A trespasser exercises act of possession against the interest of the rightful proprietor. Somanath did not act against the State. On the contrary, he functioned as Sarbarakar with the knowledge of the State authorities and although wanted an order of appointment as Sarbarakar. A trespasser exercises act of possession against the interest of the rightful proprietor. Somanath did not act against the State. On the contrary, he functioned as Sarbarakar with the knowledge of the State authorities and although wanted an order of appointment as Sarbarakar. Moreover, he had no inherent disqualification to be appointed as Sarbarakar. When Abdul Halim Khan, the next heir, unequivocally indicated his intention to the State not to be appointed as Sarbarakar of the village, Somanath could be validly appointed as Sarbarakar either as a raiyat of the village or as any other fit person as prescribed in Rule 19(5) of the Swatwa Lipi. Executive Instruction No. 17 takes within its sweep such cases where a Sarbarakar has not been formally appointed. The disputed lands would, therefore, be settled with Somanath u/s 5(1) subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) with rights of occupancy therein on a fair and equitable rent. Executive Instruction No. 17 enlarged the definition of holder of the village office? by bringing within its ambit persons who were actually discharging the duties of the Sarbarakar and enjoying the Bhogra lands but had not been formally appointed as Sarbarakar by issue of an order of appointment by the State. 15. The Collector while remanding the case to the Tahasildar referred to Executive Instruction No. 17 to be kept in view while deciding the claims of Somanath on the basis of possession. The case should not have been remanded. Both the Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue should have themselves taken into consideration Executive Instruction No. 17 for the determination of the right to be decided u/s 4(1) and in not so doing they not only acted contrary to law but failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law. 16. On the aforesaid analysis. I hold that the disputed Bhogra lands would be settled on Somanath u/s 5(1) of the Act subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2). 17. In the result, the order of the Collector dated 12-9-1970 and that of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 15-5-1973 are set aside in part. Their judgments so far as they relate to Abdul Halim Khan are confirmed. Their judgments so far as they relate to Somanath Prasad Misra are set aside. Civil Revision No. 280 of 1973 is dismissed and Civil Revision No. 295 of 1973 is allowed. Their judgments so far as they relate to Abdul Halim Khan are confirmed. Their judgments so far as they relate to Somanath Prasad Misra are set aside. Civil Revision No. 280 of 1973 is dismissed and Civil Revision No. 295 of 1973 is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs in these revisions. Final Result : Allowed