JUDGMENT M S Mukheriee J.—This case has been recommended by the District Collector," Nahan for interference on revisional side under section 17 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1953. 2 The facts which gave rise to the case are that Smt. Indravati was h-ivimr landed and other property in her name in Tehsil Nahan, District sirmour. She had executed a Registered Will (No. 3629 dated 22-^1984) before the Sub-Registrar Delhi in favour of present respondent., After her death, mutation No. 176 in Village Johron was entered on the basis of registered Will by the Patwari of the circle and was attested in favour of respondent Prakash Chand, son of Gopal Dass by the Assistant Collector TI Grade vide his order dated 19-9-1986. Subsequently an application was moved by the present petitioner, Shri Shanti Swarup for review of order dated 19-9-1986 of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and the latter sought for permission from Sub-Divisional Collector and on reconsideration, the (A. C. 11 Grade) rejected the review application, vide his order dated 11-12-1986. 3 Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 19-9-1986 and 11-12-1986, the present petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of these orders in revision before District Collector Sirmour on the grounds that the Assistant Collector IInd Grade had not given him proper opportunity to lead evidence about the genuineness/legality and validity of the Will and that Assistant Collector IInd Grade had ignored the orders of the Senior Sub-Judge Nahan and refused to give it any weightage and proceeded to mutate the property in favour of respondent. It was further stated by him that even on merit the respondent had no case. Smt Indravati had become widow in the year 1998 BK and thereafter she married one Shri Balkishan of Delhi. It was further stated by him that even on merit the respondent had no case. Smt Indravati had become widow in the year 1998 BK and thereafter she married one Shri Balkishan of Delhi. After her marriage, she never came to Sirmour or in Village Johron where the property in dispute is situated and maintained no links either with family or with property and has never remained in possession of the property in Village Johron, Tehsil Nahan It was alleged by the petitioner that according to Hindu Marriage Act 1956 deceased Indravati had no ownership right of any kind and as such she had no right to execute a Will Again the petitioner had contended that agreement deed was executed by him and Gopal Dass father of respondent Prakash on 25-4-2001 BK whereby he (respondent) had given the ownership right to the petitioner. 4 On the other hand the respondents contention before the learned Collector has been that the order passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade in mutation No. 176 on the basis of registered Will is perfect and legal and that the same calls for no interference either in appeal or revision. It was maintained by the respondent before the Collector that the Revenue Officer had made necessary enquiry as enunciated in the Land Record Mannual and that after satisfying himself about the genuineness of the Will, the Revenue Officer, had rightly mutated the land in favour of the respondent. His arguments before the Collector was that the Civil Court order passed on miscellaneous application was not a decree which could have been binding on the revenue officer. 5. The learned District Collector after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and having weighing the arguments advanced before him by the parties has made the recommendation to this Court, the relevant part of which runs as under:— "I have gone through the case file and also heard both the parties through their learned Counsels and after going into the merits of the case I am now of the opinion that unless the question of title pertaining to the disputed property is finally decided by a Civil Court the Assistant Collector 1st Grade should not have unnecessarily entered the mutation. On the other hand there were sufficient ground on the basis of which the Assistant Collector 1st Grade should have refused to give effect to the mutation. On the other hand there were sufficient ground on the basis of which the Assistant Collector 1st Grade should have refused to give effect to the mutation. The order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge delivered on 14-7-1986 vide Civil Suit No. 25/1 of 1983 (application under Order-I, Rule 10, C. P. C should have been sufficient for the A.C. 1st Grade to deter from giving effect to the mutation. In this order the learned Senior Sub-Judge has observed after framing a proper issue that the Will in question was doubtful and not to be given any weightage. Accordingly the application of Shri Prakash Chand under Order-I, Rule 10, C. P. C. for declaring him as the legal representative to late Smt. Indravati was rejected. However the Assistant Collector 1st Grade proceeded further without giving any weightage to this finding of the Civil Court which was subsequently even upheld by the order dated 15-6-1987 of Sub-Judge Nahan and also the Honble High Court. The A. C. 1st. Grade and the learned Counsel for the defendants have mentioned that since there was no decree issued by the Senior Sub-Judge in the order dated 14-7-1986 he was at liberty to act accordingly. This is not tenable there can be no decree issued by the Civil Court under an application under Order-I, Rule 10, C. P. C. The Assistant Collector 1st. Grade should have not rushed to give effect to the mutation, whatsoever its value and should have rather waited for the decision of the main Civil Suit where the question of title would be finally settled. The order of the Assistant Collector was unnecessary and in fact has created more confusion." 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the court records. The learned Counsel for the parties have reiterated the same points which were raised and argued by them before the learned District Collector and the District Collector has discussed and answered the same in his order. 7. The only new legal point raised by the counsels before this court is whether this court can or cannot interfere in this case in revision at that stage. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that if the petitioner was aggrieved with order of Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 19-9-1986, he could have gone in appeal to the next higher authority. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that if the petitioner was aggrieved with order of Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 19-9-1986, he could have gone in appeal to the next higher authority. But instead he chose to file a review petition before the same Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Now since the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade by his subsequent order dated 11-12-1986 confirmed his order of 19-9-1986, the same becomes final. Under circumstances no appeal lise against this order and this court cannot also interfere in the matter at that stage in revision, especially because the inquiry is required to be conducted under the rules in one summary manner, has already been so done and as the opposite parties were duly heard by the Assistant Collector IInd. Grade while passing his order on 11-12-1986. 9. In other words main contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that if a person prefers to seek review of an order rather than go in appeal and his review petition is rejected by the Reviewing Authority, who confirms his previous order no further appeal against such order of refusal. Nor does the case attract the scope of revisional remedy from the higher court. The learned Counsel for the respondent has averred this on the basis of provisions of C. P. C. in relation to review, appeal and revision. According to him, powers of higher court under section 17 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act similar to those given in section 115 of C P. C. and he has cited the following rulings in favour of his contention namely: (i) AIR 1943 Mad P. 377 (I) ; and (ii) AIR 1945 Patna, P. 380 (previous review confirmed). 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand argued that powers of revision of this Revenue Court are unfettered and that the aforesaid ruling concerning the provisions of C. P. C. are not applicable in cases under H. P. Land Revenue Act. In support of his contention he has quoted the author of SLJ-1982, P. 35, in which case one of my learned predecessors reiterated the scope of revisional powers of this court under the H. P. Land Revenue Act. 11. In support of his contention he has quoted the author of SLJ-1982, P. 35, in which case one of my learned predecessors reiterated the scope of revisional powers of this court under the H. P. Land Revenue Act. 11. Apart from such legal contention, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, his client was not given the due opportunity to be heard by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, while passing his order on 11-12-1986. 12. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments of the parties and to the legal issue involved in the instant case, in my opinion, the revisional powers of this court under section 17 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act are very wide, unfettered and without any restriction, while powers of this court under section 65 of the Tenancy Act are subject to some limitations and restrictions, as those of High Court under section 115 of the C. P. C. In proceedings under Land Revenue Act, C. P. C. applies only where there are no specific provisions in the Revenue Act or where it is expressly provided that the provisions of C. P. C. shall apply, but not otherwise. For revision as stated above, there is clear provision in the Land Revenue Act, which provides that Financial Commissioner may, in any case call for records by himself or as reported to him by Collector or Commissioner and pass such order as he thinks fit. I therefore, find the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent as untenable. 13. There are plausible reasons for such powers as well. Innumerable records of rights of cases constantly arise in the scattered areas of the State under the Land Revenue Act in the normal course of time. So, in the interest of speedy disposal of disputes at sites, considerable powers have to be delegated to the subordinate field functionaries. If in the course of such business, miscarriage of justice takes place, chances of remedy should understandably be available through consideration the matters by higher courts in exercise of appropriate revisional jurisdiction. The classes of cases dealt with under the Land Revenue Act do indeed very so widely that no general principle governing the use of revisional powers can be laid down, which are applicable to all. The classes of cases dealt with under the Land Revenue Act do indeed very so widely that no general principle governing the use of revisional powers can be laid down, which are applicable to all. These are no doubt, reasons why the legislature has refrained from imposing any restrictions on the higher Revenue Courts regarding the revisional powers. 14. Now coming to the specific facts of this case, I find that the Assistant Collector IInd. Grade had not examined the witnesses and the subscribers of the Will and that he ignored the findings of the Senior Sub-Judge, Nahan (made through his order dated 14-7-1986 in application under Order-I, Rule 10 of C. P. C. to the effect that the Will was fraudulent) as not relevant on the ground the Civil Court order was not of the nature of a decree. This perception of the learned Assistant Collector IInd. Grade, Nahan is wrong. Section 37 (3) of H. P. Land Revenue Act makes it abundantly clear that even orders of the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction (not necessarily a decree) are binding on the Revenue Officer while dealing with mutations. 15. Under the circumstances, I find that the orders of the Assistant Collector IInd. Grade passed by him in mutation No. 176, Village Johron, Tehsil Nahan, dated 19-9-1986 and 11-12-1986 suffer from illegal infirmity and that these deserve to be quashed. The learned District Collector has therefore, rightly recommended the case to this court for interference in revision. Accordingly, I accept the recommendations of the District Collector and quash the order dated 19-9-1986 and 11-12-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade. The case is remanded to the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade, Nahan for fresh enquiry and order, after affording reasonable opportunity to ail parties of being heard and after duly considering the relevant orders or decree of the Civil Court, including new orders of the Civil Court, if any, to be produced by the parties relevant to the case. Case remanded.-