Judgment S. B. Sinha, R. N. Prasad, JJ. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 12.5.1993 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, in Revision Case No.1/1990 as contained In Annexure-4 to the writ application whereby and whereunder he has held that the revision-petition filed before him was not maintainable. 2. The question which arises for consideration in this application is whether by reason of Sec.17 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act), second revision petition before the Commissioner which was maintainable in terms of Clause 10 of the Mutation Manual was taken away or not? 3. Admittedly, the mutation proceeding was initiated in the year 1987 being Mutation Case No.110 of 1987-88. The said proceeding, therefore, was initiated before coming into force of the said Act as the said Act came into force with effect from 2.10.1990 by reason of a notification published in the official Gazette on 18.1.1991. 4. The learned Commissioner inter alia has held that the repeal of section 17 of the Act amount of change in procedural law and, thus, the same will have a retrospective effect. In support of his aforementioned findings, reliance has been placed in New India Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Smt. Shanti Mishra Adult, reported in AIR 1976 SC 237 , Deo Narayan Lall Das and ors V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 560 and Nageshwar singh v Rajmani Kuer reported In 1986 BBCJ 364. 5. Prior to coming into force of the said Act, the matters relating to mutation were governed apart from the relevant Tenancy Acts applicable to specified (sic) areas onder the Mutation Manual. 6. 5. Prior to coming into force of the said Act, the matters relating to mutation were governed apart from the relevant Tenancy Acts applicable to specified (sic) areas onder the Mutation Manual. 6. Clause 10 of the Mutation Manual reads thus : appeals :- An appeal should be filed against the order of the Anchal adhikari within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, a revision petition will be before the Collector or the Additional collector within a period of 60 days from the date of the appellate order a second revision petition 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 Comissioner is satisfied that there are adequate grounds for entertaining a second revision petition " 7 From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision it would be evident that a right of appeal a revision were vested in party to the Us in terms thereof. 8. It is true that a mutation proceeding is not a judicial proceeding but there cannot be any doubt that they are quasi-judicial proceedings/ administrative proceeding involving civil consequences. 9. A mutation order in favour of any person entails civil consequences as In terms of thereof rent is accepted by the State only from the person in whose favour mutation order is passed. Such an order of mutation is passed upon making an enquiry of the respective claims of the parties relating to possession of movable properties. 10. In a civil litigation payment of rent is considered to an evidence of possession. Even normally no person would purchase a land unless the State recognises the owner as its tenants. An order of mutation is used in ample measures be the Executive authorities as also by the Revenue authorities. So long an order of mutation is not set aside, the Courts may presume that an official Act having been done in regular course of business, any person in whose favour an order of mutation has been passed is in possession of the lands in question. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that Mutation Manual and Clause 10 thereof deal with the procedural rights. 11. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that Mutation Manual and Clause 10 thereof deal with the procedural rights. 11. In that view of the matter, the rights vested in the party under the provision of Mutation Manual cannot be taken away except in accordance with the provision of statute. 12. The said Act (Bihar Act No.28 of 1973 (sic) received the assent of President of India on 5.5.1975 and published in the Bihar Gazette on 29th August, 1975. 13. In terms of Sec.1 (iii) of the said Act, the same was to come into force on such date and in such area as the State Government by a Notification in the official Gazette publishes and different dates could be appointed in the different areas of the State. 14. By reason of a Notification dated 8.1.1991, the said Act was made applicable in the State of Bihar with effect from 2.10.1990. 15. The said Act is, thus prospective in nature. 16. Chapter III of the said Act deals with the matters relating to mutation. Sec.15 provides for appeal and Sec.16 provides for a revision. 17. A right of appeal is a substantive right and not a procedural right. 18. In Colonial Sugar Refining Co. V/s. Irving reported in 1905 Appeal cases (Privy Council) 369, it has been observed as follows : "to deprive a suitor in a pending action of an appeal to a superior tribunal which belonged to him as of right, is a very different thing from regulating procedure. In principle, their Lordships see no difference between abolishing an appeal altogether and transferring the appeal to a new tribunal. In either case there is an interference with existing rights contrary to the well-known general principle that statutes are not to be held to act retrospectively unless a clear intention to that effect is manifested. " 19. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Supreme court in Garikapati Veerayan V/s. N. Subbiah Choudhary and others reported in AIR 1957 SC 540 , wherein it has been held as follows : "that the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded an one legal proceeding. The right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right. The right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right. The institution of the suit carries with the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit. The right of appeal is vested right and such a right to enter the superior court accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date lis commences and, although, it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced Such right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not (sic) by the law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal. This vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise. " 20. A revisional Court in effect and substance exercises an appellate jurisdiction In law. thus no distinction exists between an appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction except in so far as the same provides for a right of the appellate or revisional authority to consider the matter in terms of the provision contained therein. 21. By the Appellate Court, the entire subject-matter of the lis can re-considered but the Revisional Court may have to exercise a limited jurisdiction depending upon the phraseology used in the statute. 22. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Supreme court in State of Bombay V/s. Supreme General Films Exchange reported in air 1960 SC 980 , Kasibai V/s. Mahadu in AIR 1965 SC 703 at page 705 and jose De Costa v Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narconim in AIR 1975 SC 1843 at page 1849. 23. The learned Commissioner, thus, committed a serious error in law in so far as he held that the right of appeal is a procedural right. 24. The learned Commissioner has himself referred to a decision in bhim Singh V/s. Mohanlal Agrawal, reported in 1991 BBCJ, 459, wherein has clearly been held that the right of appeal cannot be taken away. 25. However, the learned Commissioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in New India Insurance Co. 24. The learned Commissioner has himself referred to a decision in bhim Singh V/s. Mohanlal Agrawal, reported in 1991 BBCJ, 459, wherein has clearly been held that the right of appeal cannot be taken away. 25. However, the learned Commissioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Smt. Shanti Mishra, adult, reported in 1976 SC 237, wherein it has been held that by merely making a change in the forum, i. e. change in adjectival or procedural law, a persons right is not infringed. 26. Evidently, the learned Commissioner has committed an error in relying upon the said judgment. 27. By reason of the provisions of the said Act, forum of revision has not been changed but the same is sought to be taken away inasmuch as admittedly in terms of the said Act no provision for second revision exits 28. The said Act deals with rights and obligations of the parties as also various authorities. It would appear that Chapter II imposes an obligation upon the Anchal Adhikari to prepare a continuous Khatian and tenants ledger are to be so prepared and to be sent to the S. D. O and Collector. 29. Sub-section (iv) of Sec.3 of the Act reads thus : "to supply information about the lands in respect of which and about the tenant in respect of whom, additional rents would have to be asssssed for new cultivation after the last settlement and also about tenants, who, for one reason or the other, might have escaped assessment of rent " 30. Sections 4 to 13 impose obligations upon the various Courts and authorities to give information to the Anchal Adhikari in relation to the matters enumerated therein. 31. The provision of Sec.14 which deals with the mutation only can be invoked only upon receipt of the notice under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 or application under Sec.11 or 12 of the Act or a report under section 13. 32. Section 15 provides for an appeal only against an order passed under Sec.14 (2 ). 33. Section 15 (3) of the Act provides a finality clause to the order of appellate order subject to result in revision. 34. 32. Section 15 provides for an appeal only against an order passed under Sec.14 (2 ). 33. Section 15 (3) of the Act provides a finality clause to the order of appellate order subject to result in revision. 34. From a comparison of the provisions of Mutation Manual and the said Act, it would, therefore, oppear that the procedures laid down under the said Act in relation to the mutation are absolutely different from the provision of Mutation Manual. 35. By reason of the said Act new rights and obligations have been created and the forum for redressal of grievances have also been provided for thereby. 36. In this situation, it is wholly absurd to contend that the right of second revision as contained in Clause 10 of the Mutation Manual has been taken away either expressly or by necessary implication only because provision for second revision as contained in Sec.17 of the said Act stood repealed by reason of Ordinance No.62 of 1982 which was sub-sequently repealed by Bihar Act 3 of 1983. 37. It is true that in Nageshwar Singh V/s. Rajmani Kuer case, reported in BBCJ 364, a Full Bench of this Court Inter alia held that after the repeal of Sec.17 a second revision is not maintainable. However, in that decision the question did not arise for consideration as the said Act admittedly at the relevant time was nof applicable in the Hazaribagh district. 38. In any event as noticed hereinbefore the Full Bench, other questions of law and the decisions of the Supreme Court which have been considered hereinbefore were neither considered nor discussed. 39. This Court is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 40. The Full Bench as noticed hereinbefore also did not consider the relevant statutory provisions of the said Act creating new rights and obligations nor considered the question that mutation of somebodys name in the Register would arise only in terms of the provision as contained in section 14 of the Act and not otherwise. 41. As in this case, the proceeding was not initiated in terms of the Sec.14 of the Act, the question of preferring any appeal against an order under Sec.14 (2) or 15 of the Act or a revision-petition in terms of Sec.16 of the Act did not atise. 42. 41. As in this case, the proceeding was not initiated in terms of the Sec.14 of the Act, the question of preferring any appeal against an order under Sec.14 (2) or 15 of the Act or a revision-petition in terms of Sec.16 of the Act did not atise. 42. As noticed hereinbefore, the mutation proceeding could be initiated only upon preparation of final Khatian and tenants ledger in terms of Sec.3 of the said Act. 43. It is, therefore, clear that where a proceeding has been initiated under the Mutation Manual, requirements of Sec.3 or other provisions occurring in Chapter II of the said Act were not to be complied with. 44. Ram Chandra Rams case must, thus, be held to be rendered per incuriam in any event the same is a obitum dicta and does not create any binding precedent. 45. Further, this Court in a large number of cases have taken the aforementioned view and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner for disposal of the revision application on merits. 46. In view of the law laid down by this Court relating to the second revision application, it is not necessary for us to give any notice to the Respondent no.5 who would not be prejudiced thereby inasmuch as we have merely followed the law laid down by this Court in numerous cases. 47. Reference in this connection may be made of Data Tray Pandy v State of Bihar in CWJC No.6306 of 1992. 48. This application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order dated 12.5.1993 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 49. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application Allowed