JUDGMENT In an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing Annexure 8'. By Annexure 8' the Sub-divisional Officer, Patna approved the recommendation of the Anchala Adhikari where by the Sub-divisional Officer cancelled the jamabandi of the petitioner. 2. The name of the petitioner was entered in the jamabandi in respect of plot nos. 1, 2 and 8 covering an area of 15 decimals, 1.29 acres and 35 decimals appertaining to Khata No 573 and Thana No. 38. Later on, a proceeding was initiated by the Anchal Adhikari for cancellation of the aforesaid entry in the jamabandi. Later on, the Anchal Adhikari, Phulwarisharif submitted a report vide Annexure 8' for canceling the jamabandi of the petitioner and the same was approved by the Sub-divisional Officer vide annexure 8'. The point for consideration is whether such power is vested with the Sub-divisional Officer or not? If a mutation order is passed by the Anchal Adhikari there is a provision for preferring an appeal under Rule 10 of the Instructions for the Disposal of Mutation Cases. We have been informed that these provisions have been issued under section 13 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. It is relevant to quote Rule 10 which runs as follows :- “10. Appeal should be filed against the order of the Anchaladhikari within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, a revision petition will lie before the Collector or the Additional Collector within a period of 60 days from the date of the appellate order, a second revision petition may be entertained by the Divisional Commissioner within a period of 60 days from the date of the order passed by the Collector or the Additional Collector provided the Commissioner is satisfied that there are adequate grounds for entertaining a second revision petition.” 3. On a perusal of Rule 10 it is clear that if an order is passed by the Anchal Adhikari, an appeal shall lie within 30 days from that Order. Revision petitions are also maintainable against the appellate order. The grievance of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the State of Bihar did not prefer any appeal against the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari for mutating the name of the petitioner. In our opinion, the grievance is correct. Revision petitions are also maintainable against the appellate order. The grievance of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the State of Bihar did not prefer any appeal against the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari for mutating the name of the petitioner. In our opinion, the grievance is correct. Hence the procedure adopted by the Sub-divisional Officer in canceling the jamabandi of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. Hence we quash Annexure 8'. We may observe that the State authorities may follow any other legal procedure, if advised to do so. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure 8' is hereby quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Application allowed.