K. L. SRIVASTATA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India is for quashing the order dated 28-11-1981 passed by the board of Revenue M. P. Gwalior rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The impugned order also decides two other appeals by persons other than the petitioner. ( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this petitioner are these. In certain recovery proceedings against the petitioner, his property was put to auction on 23-7-1979. The auction was confirmed on 11-9-1979 by the Recovery Officer, Co-operative societies Indore. ( 3 ) FAILURE dogged the petitioner In the first appeal preferred by him under section 77 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act')before the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies Indore. Undaunted, the petitioner preferred second appeal under Section 77 (2) of the Act to the Board of revenue, Gwalior on several grounds. ( 4 ) THE Board of Revenue, after hearing the parties, found that in the appeal, three questions cropped up for decision. It has, however, rejected the appeal on the sole ground that as held in Nannulal's case [1975 R. N. 131] it was untenable in view of clause (iv) of Rule 66 (6) of the M. P. Co-operative societies Rules, 1962 (for short the Rules ). ( 5 ) SECTION 77 (2) of the Act provides for second appeal to the State government. As pointed out in the Full Bench decision in Hastimal's case [ 1972 JLJ 1049 ] by a notification, the State Government has conferred on the Board of Revenue the powers to hear appeals under Section 77 of the act. ( 6 ) THE decision in Nannulal's case (Supra) interprets Rule 66 (6) (iv) of the Rules. The said rule after providing under sub-rule (i) for an order for confirmation of sale, in its aforesaid clause (iv) lays down as under : "an order made under this sub-rule shall be final, and shall not be liable to be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings. " ( 7 ) IN the Division Bench decision in Nannulal's case (supra) it was held that the order made sub-rule (6) confirming the sale attained finality and was not liable to be questioned by reason of clause (iv) thereof. " ( 7 ) IN the Division Bench decision in Nannulal's case (supra) it was held that the order made sub-rule (6) confirming the sale attained finality and was not liable to be questioned by reason of clause (iv) thereof. In the Full bench decision in Liyakat Ali's case [1984 MPLJ 489] this decision has been overruled and it has been held that Rule 66 (6) (iv) cannot operate as a bar to an appeal under Section 77 or a revision under Section 80 of the Act. It is a trite preposition that rules framed under the Act cannot over-ride the provisions of the Act under which they have been framed. The following excerpt from paragraph (2) of the Full Bench decision is pertinent :"it is, therefore, clear that under Section 95 when the Act conferred powers on the State Government to frame rules in exercise of delegated powers, the State Government could not do what was only open to the Legislature i. e. to amend or modify the provisions contained in Section 77 and in this view of the matter, therefore, the first sentence of Section 77 about any otherwise provision could not refer to a rule framed by an authority in exercise of delegated powers under Section 95 where the delegation is only for furtherance of the purpose of the Act. " ( 8 ) FROM what has been discussed above, it is apparent that the Board of revenue was in error in rejecting the appeal as it did. ( 9 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order so far as it relates to the petitioner is quashed. It is directed that the Board of revenue shall decide his appeal on merits according to law. Costs of this petition shall be borne by the parties as incurred. The outstanding amount of security deposit be refunded to the petitioner after verification. Petition allowed. .