JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS application by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to quash the order dated 10-2-1975 of the Board of Revenue partly allowing his appeal and directing the Collector, Dewas to pass a fresh order entrusting all the duties of a Patel of the village to the Gram Panchayat. ( 2. ) THE petitioner was appointed as the Patel of village Barkheda Tonk by the Collector, Dewas. Subsequent to his appointment as the Patel, the Gram panchayat passed a resolution to the effect that the duties of the Patel may be entrusted to it. On the recommendation of the Collector, Dewas, the State government by virtue of the powers vested in it under section 229 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) passed by its Memo dated October 10, 1973 sanctioning the entrustment of the duties of the Patel to the Gram Panchayat Barkheda Tonk tahsil Sonkatch. Aggrieved by the order of the Government, the petitioner approached the Collector and filed an application. Thereupon the Collector by his order dated March 30, 1974 entrusted the realisation of the land revenue and work of other recoveries of the Patel to the Gram Panchayat and authorised the Panch Daulatram to perform the duties and also ordered that the remaining duties pertaining to the office of the Patel shall continue to be performed by the Patel, the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, both the Gram Panchayat as well as the petitioner preferred appeals to the Additional Commissioner, who dismissed both the appeals. The Gram Panchayat did not file a further appeal to the Board of revenue but, however, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 49 of the code to the Board of Revenue in respect of the portion of the order of the additional Commissioner, which adversely affected him. The Gram Panchayat did not file a further appeal to the Board of revenue but, however, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 49 of the code to the Board of Revenue in respect of the portion of the order of the additional Commissioner, which adversely affected him. The Board of Revenue was of the view that section 229 of the Code provides for the entrustment of all the duties pertaining to the Patel of any village to the Gram Panchayat by the state Government and there is no provision therein for entrustment of some only of the duties to the Gram Panchayat and the remaining to the Patel or any other individual, and consequently the appeal was partly allowed with a direction to the Collector to pass a fresh order entrusting all the duties of the Patel to this gram Panchayat. ( 3. ) THIS order of the Board of Revenue is sought to be quashed by the petitioner in this application. The submission of Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner is three-fold (1) That when no appeal has been preferred by the aggrieved party and the opposite party or neither party filed an appeal or memo of appeal, the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to review the order which is not appealed against. (2) That proviso to section 50 bars the exercise of such suo motu powers which are analogous to revision by a party. (3) The Board of Revenue did not give the petitioner an idea or impression that it is exercising suo motu powers of revision depriving him from arguing his case within the provisions of section 50 of the Code and that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and illegal. ( 4. ) THIS claim of the petitioner is resisted by Shri S. D. Sanghi, learned counsel for the contesting respondent contending inter alia that the Board of revenue is empowerd to pass the impugned order under section 49 of the Code; that the Board of Revenue is also entitled to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under section 50 of the Code and there is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order and in any event this Court should refrain from the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction as the orders of the Collector are patently illegal or without jurisdiction. The learned Deputy Government Advocate adopted the submissions of Shri Sanghi and added that there is no merit in this writ petition. ( 5. ) ON the respective contentions of the parties, the following questions arise :- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Board of Revenue is competent to pass the impugned order, which covers the portion of the order of the Collector which is not appealed against by the 6th respondent ? (2) Whether the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue under section 50 of the Code, can be invoked in the instant case ? (3) Whether the writ as prayed for can be granted ? ( 6. ) WE shall first take up question No. 1. The answer to this question depends upon the provisions of section 49 of the Code and their application to the facts of the case. Before looking into the facts we may notice the provisions of section 49. Section 49 indicates the powers of the appellate authority in dealing with the appeals preferred thereunder. Sub-section (1) of section 49 empowers the appellate authority either to admit the appeal or after calling for the record and giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard to summarily dismiss the appeal. The appellate authority is not bound to call for the record where the appeal is time-barred or is not maintainable. Where the appeal is admitted, sub-section (2) requires to fix a date for hearing after service of the notice on the respondent. Sub-section (3) enumerates the powers of the appellate authority after hearing the parties, if they appear. Sub-section (3), which is material, reads thus :- "49. Power of appellate authority. (1) * * * (2) * * * (3) After hearing the parties, if they appear, the appellate authority may confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed against; or may direct such further investigation to be made, or such additional evidence to be taken, as it may think necessary; or may itself take such additional evidence; or may remand the case for disposal with such direction as it thinks fit. " The appellate authority may either confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed against. It can also direct such further investigation to be made or such additional evidence to be taken, as it may think necessary. " The appellate authority may either confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed against. It can also direct such further investigation to be made or such additional evidence to be taken, as it may think necessary. It is also open to the appellate authority to take such additional evidence by itself. The appellate authority is empowered to remand the case itself with such direction as it thinks fit. The powers of the appellate authority under section 49 are wide enough either to confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed against and also to remand the case for disposal as it thinks fit. It can, therefore, direct further investigation or take additional evidence by itself or direct evidence to be taken by any other subordinate. ( 7. ) IN the present case, the petitioner alone preferred an appeal against the portion of the order of the Additional Commissioner in respect of the dispute. The appellate authority found on facts the order of the collector distributing the duties of the Patel between the Gram Panchayat and the Patel is not warranted by section 229 of the Code empowers the State Government to sanction the entrustment of the duties of the Patel to Gram Panchayat. It may be noticed that the entrustment of the duties must be made as a whole. There is no scope under section 229 to entrust some of the duties of the Patel to the gram Panchayat and the remaining to the Patel. The Collector also is not competent to pass any order contrary to one passed by the State Government under section 229 of the Code. The Collector cannot usurp the powers of the state Government under section 229 of the Code. The allocation of duties of the Patel between the Gram Panchayat and the Patel by the Collector, therefore, must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Noticing this state of affairs, the Board of Revenue in the impugned order has rightly thought fit and proper to allow the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and remand the case to the Collector with a direction to pass an order entrusting all the duties of the Patel to the Gram Panchayat pursuant to the order of the State Government under section 229 of the Code. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The powers of remand with such a direction as it thinks fit are provided in section 49 itself. The impugned order must be construed as a whole; when so construed, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed the Collector to pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law. We, therefore, find that the board of Revenue is empowered, in the circumstances of this case, to pass the impugned order by virtue of its powers under section 49 of the Code. ( 8. ) EVEN assuming for the sake of argument that the appellate authority is not empowered to pass any order in respect of the portion of the order of the Additional Commissioner which is not appealed against, the Board of revenue must be construed to have exercised revisional jurisdiction under section 50 of the Code Section 50 empowers the Board of Revenue to revise either suo motu or on the application of any party an order passed by any Revenue officer subordinate to it if it is illegal, improper or irregular and pass such order as it thinks fit and proper. The submissions of Shri Garg that the revisional powers under section 50 of the Code cannot be invoked by the Board of revenue in the instant case in view of the proviso which prohibits the entertainment of any revision, against an order appealable under the Code cannot be acceded to. The relevant portion of the proviso to section 50 (1) reads thus :-Provided that- (i) no application for revision shall be entertained- (a) against an order appealable under this Code. * * * *" the portion of the order sought to be revised by the Board of Revenue is no doubt appealable under section 49. As pointed out earlier, no appeal has been preferred by the 6th respondent herein ; but the revisional powers now sought to be exercised by the Board of Revenue is not on the application of a party who is aggrieved by the order sought to be revised. The revisional power under section 50 (1) now sought to be relied is the suo motu power. The proviso will apply to the cases where applications in revision by an aggrieved party could be filed. The revisional power under section 50 (1) now sought to be relied is the suo motu power. The proviso will apply to the cases where applications in revision by an aggrieved party could be filed. It does not bar the suo motu revisional powers of the Board. The suo motu revisional power entrusted to the Board of Revenue, Commissioner, the Settlement Commissioner as the case may be, is for the purpose of satisfying as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any revenue officer subordinate to him. There may be cases where the parties would not or could not prefer any revision but in the interest of justice the Legislature thought fit and proper to entrust the aforesaid authorities with the suo motu revisional powers so as to set right any order passed by the subordinate officer if it is illegal, improper or irregular. It is not the object of the proviso : to touch the suo motu revisional powers of the aforesaid authorities. Hence, we are unable to agree with Shri Garg that the proviso would bar the exercise of the suo motu revisional powers in the instant case. ( 9. ) TRUE, as submitted by Shri Garg that there is no mention of section 50 of the Code in the impugned order ; but, on a reading of the entire order, we have no hesitation to hold that the Board of Revenue must be deemed to have exercised suo motu powers as it felt that the order of the Collector allocating the duties of the Patel between the Gram Panchayat and the Patel is wholly without jurisdiction and incompetent. The absurdity of the order of the district Collector has been rightly set aside by the Board of Revenue. In such cases, the Board of Revenue must be held to have exercised its suo motu revisional powers under section 50 (1) and passed the impugned order. It is now well settled that where a Tribunal or an authority is in fact competent in law to pass an impugned order, the mere fact that there is no mention of the particular provision or the section of a statute therein, would not in any way affect the validity of such order. It is now well settled that where a Tribunal or an authority is in fact competent in law to pass an impugned order, the mere fact that there is no mention of the particular provision or the section of a statute therein, would not in any way affect the validity of such order. It admits of no doubt that the Board of revenue has not only the appellate powers under section 49, but also the revisional powers under section 50 and the mere fact that it did not mention section 50 or that it did not indicate its revisional powers would not in any way affect the validity of the impugned order. We, therefore, hold that the order of the Board of Revenue now sought to be challenged by the petitioner is perfectly valid and in accordance with law. We may add that the Board has passed a correct and proper order in the circumstances of the case and has rectified the defects and illegality committed by the Collector which was not noticed by the Additional Commissioner, at the stage of hearing of the appeal. ( 10. ) THE decisions relied upon by Shri Garg in support of his argument do not very much advance his case. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Om Prakash v. Municipal Committee, Dabra and others, 1976 MPLJ 475 =1976 J L J 390. is a case which arises under the Municipalities Act, 1961. Therein the order passed by the succeeding President of the Board of Revenue in a review application was sought to be quashed. The succeeding President reviewed the order passed by his predecessor holding that the order of the Collector was without jurisdiction. It was held that where the Collector clearly heard a case as an appeal and passed an order in appeal as an appellate authority and the appeal was not tenable the order cannot be justified as being passed in revision. In the present case the order of the Collector in the circumstances stated herein was not tenable in law. If the appeal itself is not maintainable the question of the entertainability of a revision might arise. The facts in the present case are altogether different from the facts therein. The very order of the Additional Commissioner is under appeal. The Board of Revenue had seisin of the matter. If the appeal itself is not maintainable the question of the entertainability of a revision might arise. The facts in the present case are altogether different from the facts therein. The very order of the Additional Commissioner is under appeal. The Board of Revenue had seisin of the matter. In fact adverse portion of the order against which no appeal has been preferred by the Gram panchayat was noticed by the Board of Revenue while considering the merit of the appeal preferred by the petitioner; in Om Prakashs case {supra) it was not so. Hence that decision would not render much assistance to the petitioner. There remains the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Badriprasad v. Board of Revenue and others, 1969 Revenue Nirnaya 269. That decision is an authority for the proposition that if no relief is granted in the Board of Revenue there can be no interference in favour of the respondent-State which did not file any appeal against the order of allotment. That decision also is not analogous to the present case. Therefore, this decision need not detain us any longer. ( 11. ) FOR all the reasons stated, the question 1, 2 and 3 must be answered against the petitioner. We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is valid, competent and in accordance with law as the Board of Revenue is empowered to pass the same by virtue of section 49 read with section 50 of the Code and it is also just and proper. We, therefore, dismiss the petition with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 250 if certified. Petition dismissed.