JUDGMENT S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. A veiled doubt about the correctness of the Division bench Judgment in Sri Kalut Choudhary Vs. The State of Bihar and others ( 1980 BBCJ 373 ) had originally necessitated this reference to the Full Bench at the threshold stage of admission. That issue has, however, been totally eclipsed and what now comes to the force is the question whether a Second revision is still maintainable in mutation proceedings despite the repeal of section 17 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 by virtue of Bihar Ordinance 62 of 1982 and the subsequent Bihar Act, of 1983 ? 2. The facts, which deserve notice for the purpose of the pristine legal issue aforesaid, lie in a narrow compass. Shorn of details, these are that petitioner no. 1. Ram Gandhra Ram, applied before the Anchal Achikari, Kodarma, for the mutation of 1.38 acres of land in village Moriawan. On that basis, Mutation Case No. 29 of 1977-78 was started and in the subsequent proceedings the Anchal Adhikari allowed the mutation of the said land is favour of the petitioners. Respondent no. 5, Shrimati India Devi wife of Akal Ram preferred Mutation Appeal no. 11 of 1977 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Kodarma, who allowed the same (vide annexure 5). Aggrieved thereby, petitioner no.1 preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, who in turn allowed the same and set aside the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Respondent no. 5 India Devi, then filed a second revision before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, which was registered as Mutation Revision no. 14 of 1983. By a detailed order of the 2nd of August, 1983 the Commissioner (vide annexure 7) allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Additional Collector. The primal challenge in this writ petition is to the very maintainability of the second revision before the Commissioner. 3. The solitary – though forceful – contention of Mr. N.K. Prasad is that at the material time in 1983, the second revision to the Commissioner was no longer competent in view of the repeal of section 17 of the Bihar Tenants, Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 by virtue of the earlier Ordinance no. 62 of 1982 and the subsequent enactment of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) (Amendment) Act, 1982. 4. 62 of 1982 and the subsequent enactment of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) (Amendment) Act, 1982. 4. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to have a brief retrospect of the provisions governing the appeals and revisions in the specific field of mutation proceedings. It will appear that prior to 1983 this arena was not covered by any Act, of the legislature of statutory rules framed thereunder. In the absence thereof it seems common ground that the instructions for the disposal of mutation cases as contained in the Revenue Department, Government of Bihar letter no. EXXIV-305/63-101 LR dated the 4/7th January, 1963 governed the proceedings. Curiously enough, learned counsel for the parties were somewhat ambivalent about the statutory source of these instructions whether they emanated by virtue of section 13 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, or flowed from the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules. Be that as it may, the relevant para 10 of the said instructions was in the terms following. “10. Appeals.—An appeal should be filed against the order of the Anchal Adhikari within an 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 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.” 5. However, in the year 1973 the matter was sought to be given statutory foundation by the enactment of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘Act’). This received the assent of the President of India on the 5th of May, 1975 and was published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) no. 950 dated 20th of August, 1975. The preamble thereof clearly indicate the larger purpose of the Act, as under; “To provide for the maintenance of up-to-date records of holdings of raiyats in the State of Bihar and matters connected therewith.” Section 1 of the Act, to which reference would have to follow, is in the following terms: “1. Short title, extent and commencement:-- (1) This Act, may be called the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Short title, extent and commencement:-- (1) This Act, may be called the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. (2) It extends to the whole of the State of Bihar. (3) It shall come into force on such date and in such area as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, different dates may be appointed for different areas of the State.” Chapter III of the Act, then provided in terms for the mutation proceedings by the detailed provision of section 14 contained therein. Immediately succeeding this provision comes Chapter IV headed as— “APPEALS, REVISIONS AND POWER TO CALL FOR RECORD OF ANY CASE.” Section 15 therein provided for an appeal to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector against the order of the Anchal Adhikari passed under section 14 (3) within the time prescribed. Section 16 then provided for a revision by the Collector on the grounds of legality or propriety of any order made under the Act. Thereafter section 17 split out the power of the Commissioner of the division to call for the record of any case but limited the exercise of the said power in terms identical with that of the well known section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Undoubtedly, the provisions of Chapters III and IV containing sections 14 and 17 would, thus, supplant and substitute all earlier provisions either by way of rules or instructions, etc. Inevitably included in this category would be para 10 of the instructions referred to above. It is axiomatic that the two parallel procedural provisions could not possibly be allowed to have play in the same identical field and in any case the statutory provisions of a duly enacted statute would override the mere governmental instructions on the point. 6. It would appear that the passage of about a decade necessitated substantial changes in the Act. Consequently on the 18th of October, 1982 the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1982 (Bihar Ordinance no. 62 of 1982) was promulgated making structural changes in the Act, by way of substantial amendments. Section 10 of the said Ordinance in express terms provided that section 17 of the Act, shall be omitted. Consequently on the 18th of October, 1982 the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1982 (Bihar Ordinance no. 62 of 1982) was promulgated making structural changes in the Act, by way of substantial amendments. Section 10 of the said Ordinance in express terms provided that section 17 of the Act, shall be omitted. It would appear that even the somewhat limited exercise of power by way of a second revision by the Commissioner was found incongruous and its deletion became necessary in order to cut down the inordinately long hierarchy of appeals and revisions in the forums of somewhat simplistic field of revenue mutations. The Ordinance was followed by the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Bihar Act, No. 3 of 1983) (hereinafter called the ‘amending Act’), and by section 9 thereof the earlier repeal of section 9 of the Act, was maintained. It came into force on March 11, 1983. 7. Mr. Bajaj, the learned counsel for the respondents, had first pointed out that no objection to the maintainability of the second revision was taken before the commissioner and this is perhaps so because no reference thereto is found in the judgment of the Commissioner. Although we are of the opinion that a preliminary objection about the maintainability should be raised at the very earliest, yet it is equally well settled that a contention which goes to the root of the matter and the very existence of the jurisdiction may be permitted to be raised for the first time in higher forum. Apparently, in the year 1983 the amending Ordinance and the subsequent Act, were of recent origin and the learned counsel for the parties may not have been well aware thereof. In the present case we have no hesitation in permitting the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prasad, to raise this contention in the writ jurisdiction. 8. Mr. Bajaj had then attempted to contend that para 10 of the instructions would still continue to be operative despite the repeal of section 17 even in jurisdiction where the Act, had not extended. This argument is only to be noticed and rejected. As has already been pointed out, the provisions of Chapters III and IV of the Act, are specific provisions with regard to the mutation proceedings and the appeal and revision arising therefrom. This argument is only to be noticed and rejected. As has already been pointed out, the provisions of Chapters III and IV of the Act, are specific provisions with regard to the mutation proceedings and the appeal and revision arising therefrom. They would thus cover the field to the exclusion of any other instruction to the contrary obviously enough, a mere instruction cannot be allowed to override an Act, duly enforced by the legislature within the same jurisdiction. It would be thus plain that para 10 would cease to have any force in all those areas to which the Act, of 1973 had been duly extended in matters pertaining to mutations. The contention of Mr. Bajaj in this context, therefore, must be rejected. 9. However, it seems that though Mr. Prasad substantially succeeds on the legal question raised by him, he has secured only a pyrrhic victory. Relying on sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act, Mr. Bajaj pointed out that the provisions of the said Act, would come into force only on such dated and in such areas as the State Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint and different dates may be appointed for different areas of the State. Counsel took the stand that the said Act, had, as yet, not been extended to the Hazaribagh district. Our attention was drawn to Government S.O. 683 dated 11th of May, 1978 by virtue of which the provisions of the Act, have been extended to the specified Anchals of Purnia district with effect from the 1st day of June, 1978. Similarly, by G.C.S.O. 1049 dated 1st day of August, 1978 the Act, has been enforced with effect from the 1st day of August, 1978 in specified Anchals of the Munger district, East Champaran, Nalanda and Patna districts only. On these premises, Mr. Bajaj was firm that as yet the provisions of the Act, have no application in the district of Hazaribhagh. Despite extended opportunity given to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they have been unable to bring to our notice any notification extending the Act, to the relevant jurisdiction in Hazaribagh. Once that is so, it is plain that the earlier position under para 10 of the instructions would continue to inhere whereunder the second revision to the Commissioner would be maintainable. Once that is so, it is plain that the earlier position under para 10 of the instructions would continue to inhere whereunder the second revision to the Commissioner would be maintainable. No challenge on the merits of the order of the learned Commissioner was at all laid. 10. Before parting with this judgment, we would notice that in view of the line of argument in the case no occasion arose for the case for the construction of the ratio in 1980 BBCJ 373 (supra) and indeed learned counsel for the parties did not even refer to the same. 11. Finally to conclude, the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the negative, and it is held that a second revision would not now be maintainable in the mutation proceedings after the repeal of section 17 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 in all areas where the Act, has been duly extended and enforced. 12. However, in the present writ petition since it has not been shown that the Act, of 1973 has been extended to Hazaribagh district, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners must fail and this writ petition is consequently dismissed without any order as to cost. Satyeshwar Roy, J. I agree. Anand Prasad Sinha, J. I agree. Application dismissed.