Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. -since common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ applications, which were directed to be heard together, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. It appears that against the writ petitioners applications were relied by respondent No.3, in each cases, claiming himself to be an under raiyat before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Katihar. The Deputy collector by his orders, as contained in Annexure-4, rejected the applications at the stage of initiation of the proceedings as having been filed with an object to harass the petitioners and to grab their lands. Against the orders of the Deputy Collector respondent No.35went up in revisions before the Collector, Katihar, who by his order dated 11-10-1982/2-11-1982 (as contained in Annexure-11) allowed them and remitted the causes to besides to disposed of in accordance with law. The petitioners challenge the aforesaid revisional orders (as contained in Annexure-1) in all writ applications as being wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as under the act or the Rules framed thereunder no revision lay against the orders at the stage of Sec.48-E (1) of the Act of the Deputy Collector Land reforms. 3. No counter-affidavit has been filed to these writ applications except in C, W. J. C.417 of 1983 stating therein that the Collector of the district has got supervisory power over his subordinate and under which he has entertained the revision application and has directed the Deputy collector Land Reforms to act in accordance with law. 4. Mr. B. K. Mody, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that a revision being a creature of statute and under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder no revision having been provided against the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms rejecting an application filed under Sec.48-E (1) of the Act, the revisions filed by the respondent No.3 before the Collector, Katihar (respondent No.2)were not at all maintainable and consequently the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for repondent No.3 in c. W. J. C. Nos.411, 412, 415 and 417 of 1983, submits that it is true that under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder the Collector lacked jurisdiction but nevertheless he being head of the entire district had supervisory control over the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and accordingly had jurisdiction to interfere with his orders. 6. 6. In my view, contentions of Mr. Mody are sound and are accepted it is in a settled law that appeal or revision both are creatures of statute. In some statutes power of supervision and control has also been vested in the higher authorities but that will not extend to the cases under Bihar tenancy Act inasmuch as no such power of supervision and control has been vested in the Collector of the district to set aside such an order passed by the Deputy Collector. 7. For the said reasons I am of the view that the orders as contained in Annexure-1 to these writ applications are without jurisdiction. 8. In the result these writ applications are allowed, the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-1 are quashed but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to cost. Let writ of certiorari issue accordingly. Writ applications are allowed.