JUDGMENT S.N.P. Singh, C. J. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of a proceeding under section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The petitioners in this writ application have challenged the validity of the order dated 17. 9. 71 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, in Case no; 136 of 1971, a copy whereof has been made annexure 1 to the writ application. The short facts leading to this application may be briefly stated as follows. By a registered sale deed dated 5th of June, 1969 Nanhak Mahto, respondent no. 3, sold 0.221/2 acre of land appertaining to khata no. 18 and plot nos. 49 and 55 in village Ishaquenagar, police station Hussainabad in the district of Palamu, to Laxman Mahto, respondent no. 2, for a consideration of Rs. 600/-. The petitioners claiming themselves to be co-sharers as well as adjoining raiyats of the lands sold filed an application for preemption under section 16 (3) of the Act, on 29-7-69 before the Deputy Collector , Land Reforms, Daltonganj. The said application for pre-emption was admitted by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, on the same date. Finally, by order dated 30th of January, 1970, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Daltonganj, allowed the petition for pre-emption. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Daltonganj respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal before the Sub-divisional Officer, Daltonganj. On 4th of January, 1971 the Sub-divisional Officer allowed the appeal of respondent no. 2 and set aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. on 2nd of February, 1971 the petitioners filed an application in revision purporting to be one under rule 54 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules), before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, who rejected the application on the ground that it was not maintainable. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application in revision under section 32 of the Act, before the Board of Revenue, which was heard by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application in revision under section 32 of the Act, before the Board of Revenue, which was heard by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. The learned Additional Member, by the impugned order, declined to entertain the application on the ground that the petitioners should have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of the division. 2. The short point which calls for consideration in this case is whether a second appeal is maintainable under the provisions of the Act, and the Rules. The relevant provision in the Act, regarding appeal has been made in section 30. Section 30 reads as follows: "(1) An appeal from any final order made by the Collector under this Act, except an order under section 8 or subsection (5) of section 28, if preferred within sixty days of the date of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority: Provided that any such appeal may be admitted after sixty days of the date of the order appealed against, if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within such period. (2) An appeal under this section shall be heard and disposed of in the prescribed manner." In rule 48 of the rules appellate authorities have been prescribed. Rule 48 reads as follows: “(1) Subject to sub-section (1) of section 30, an appeal against an order passed under the Act, by a Collector of the rank mentioned below in the first column shall lie to a Collector of the area concerned of the rank mentioned in the corresponding entry in the second column : (i) Sub-Deputy Collector. Land Reforms Deputy Collector or Additional Sub-divisional Officer. Sub-divisional-Officer. (ii) Deputy Collector other than the Sub-divisional Officer. (iii) Sub-divisional Additional Collector Officer or the Collector of the district. (iv) Additional Collector or Collector of the district. Divisional Commissioner, or to such authority as may be appointed from time to time by the State Government by notification published in the Bihar Gazette. According to the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, when an order is passed by the Additional Collector or the Collector of a "district in whatever capacity, an appeal will lie to the Divisional Commissioner. The view taken by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, is manifestly wrong. According to the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, when an order is passed by the Additional Collector or the Collector of a "district in whatever capacity, an appeal will lie to the Divisional Commissioner. The view taken by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, is manifestly wrong. As provided in section 30 of the Act, only one appeal from a final order passed by the Collector under the Act, lies before the prescribed authority. Under rule 48 four classes of officers have been specified, who can exercise the power of Collector under the Act. In Column no. 2 the corresponding appellate authority has been prescribed. On a plain reading of rule 48, it is clear that no second appeal is provided under that rule. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, in my opinion, misconstrued the provision of rule 48 of the Rules read with section 30 of the Act, in holding that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was appealable before the Divisional Commissioner. Similar provision as contained in section 30 of the Act, has been made in section 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. In rule 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951 appellate authorities under section 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 have been prescribed. Rule 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules is similar to rule 48 of the Rules. In the case of Hazari Lal Gami V. K. Raman, Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar1 a Bench of this Court held that rule 8 provides for one appeal only and when the order is passed by an officer below the rank of an Additional Collector then the appeal would lie to the Additional Collector whereas if the order is passed by the Additional Collector himself then the appeal would lie before the Collector; similarly, if the original order is passed by the Collector then the aggrieved party can prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of the division. I am, therefore, of the view that under rule 48 of the Rules read with section 30 of the Act, if the original order is passed by the Sub-Deputy Collector, the appeal will lie before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector or Additional Sub-divisional Officer, if the original order is passed by the Deputy Collector other than the Sub-divisional Officer then the appeal will lie before the Sub-divisional Officer, if the original order is passed by the Sub-divisional Officer then the appeal will lie before the Additional Collector or the Collector of the district and if the original order is passed by the Additional Collector or the Collector of the district, the appeal will lie before the Divisional Commissioner or such other authority as may be appointed from time to time by the State Government by notification published in the Bihar Gazette. There is no scope for a second appeal either under the provision of rule 48 or the Rules read with section 30 of the Act. For the reasons stated above, it must be held that the learned additional Member, Board of Revenue, erred in law in holding that an appeal was maintainable before the Commissioner of the division against the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 3. In the result, this application is allowed, the order of the additional Member, Board of Revenue, as contained in annexure 1 to the writ application is quashed and the case is remanded to the Board of Revenue for disposal of the application filed by the petitioners under section 32 of the Act, in accordance with the law. There will be no order as to cost. S.K. Jha, J., 1 agree. Application allowed.