JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. In this writ application the petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 12.5. 1981 passed by the Member Board of Revenue (Respondent no.2) as contained in Annexure-7 as also the order dated 1.6.1982 passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division (respondent no.3) as contained in Annexure-8, to the writ application. 2. The facts of case lie in a very narrow compass and need not be stated in detail. The petitioners, who are allegedly landless persons, were settled with the lands in question as far back as in the year 1973. In terms of the provisions of Section 32 of the Santhal parganas Tenancy (Supplementary provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), The aforementioned settlement, which was in respect of plot no 23 measuring 3 bighas situate in village Kurman, police station Godda in the district of Santhal parganas in favour of the petitioners, was challenged by respondent no.7 sometimes in the year 1974. The matter went up to the Commissioner, who by his order dated 17-6-1980, as contained in Annexure-6, to the writ petition ultimately dismissed the said application field on behalf of respondent no. 7. Respondent no. 7 thereafter filed an application before the Member Board of Revenue (respondent no 2) by reason of the impugned order dated 12.5. 1981, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, the respondent no.2, remitted back the matter to respondent no 3 the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division where by and whereunder, he was directed to consider the matter afresh after giving notice to the Forest Department Pursuant to the aforementioned order (Annexure. 7), the respondent no. 3, by reason of the impugned order dated 1.6.1982 as contained in Annexure-a to the writ application, came to the conclusion that the lower courts, meaning thereby, the Sub-divisional Officer as also the Deputy Commissioner, while passing their orders as contained in Annexures 4 and 5 the writ application, have rightly cancelled the settlement made in favour of the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a very short question. He submitted that in terms of the provision of Section 63 of the Act, the order of the Commissioner, as contained in Annrxure-6 to the writ application is final Section 63 of the said Act, reads as under:- "Bar to suits. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a very short question. He submitted that in terms of the provision of Section 63 of the Act, the order of the Commissioner, as contained in Annrxure-6 to the writ application is final Section 63 of the said Act, reads as under:- "Bar to suits. No suit shall be entertained in any Court, to vary, modify or set aside, either directly or indirectly, any order of the Deputy Commissioner in any application which is cognizable by the Deputy Commissioner under this Act, and every such order shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, releting to appeal and revision, be final ; 4. From a perusal of the aforementioned Act, it will be evident that the said Act, is a self contained Code. The Sub-divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner exercise powers of orignal and appellate authorities; whereas the Commissioner of the Division functions as revisional authority. As the Sub-divisional Officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner Act, in terms of the statutory provisions contained in the Act, they, in no circumstance can be said to be discharging the functions of Revenue Courts. As noticed here-in-before, the Act, is a self contained Code, no authority has power or jurisdiction to pass any order whatsoever in relation to matters arising out of au order under the provisions of the aforementioned Act, which is not provided for in the said Act, itself. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on be half of the State has submitted that the Board of Revenue would exercise its powers in terms of Rule 3 of the Bihar Board's miscellaneous Rules, 1918. Under the said Rule the Member Board of Revenue may exercise its power to set aside the orders passed by authorities subordinate to it, but such orders, which can be interfered with by the Board of Revenue must not be final. 6. In my opinion, the Member Board of Revenue had absolutely no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Commissioner, as contained in Annexure-6, inasmuch as the said order, in terms of Section 63 of the Act, even in terms of Rule 3 of the aforementioned Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules has become final by reason of the provisions of the said Act. From the aforementioned Rules it is evident that if finality has been given to any order by any law, I the jurisdiction of the Member Board of Revenue is expressly ousted by Rule 3 of the aforementioned Rules. 7. It is a well settled principle of law that even a right decision given by a wrong forum is no decision at all in the eye of law. In this situation it must be held that the Member Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to form the order as contained in Annexure-7 and consequently the Commissioner had also no jurisdiction to pass the order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application and as the said impugned orders have bee n passed wholly without jurisdiction, they are also nullities in the eye of law. 8. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 7 and 8 are hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.