ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.06.2012. By said order, the Board of Revenue rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.05.2013, The Board opined that the said order is passed under the provisions of Revenue Book Circular and, therefore, the Board of Revenue has no authority/competence/jurisdiction to hear and entertain the matter. Accordingly,appeal was dismissed. 2. Shri Gajendra Gadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2012 RN 256 (Fulla Vs. Narendra Singh and others). By placing reliance from paras 5 to 8, it is stated that the Board of Revenue has power to entertain revision against the order passed by Revenue Officer. 3. Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy. Government Advocate for the State, has not refuted aforesaid legal submission. 4. Although both the parties have agreed that the question involved in this matter is covered by the recent Division Bench Judgment in Fulla (supra), it is profitable to quote paras 5 to 8 of this judgment:- “5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision in accordance with the Revenue Book Circular. He has further contended that on merits, the order of settlement passed by the Naib Tahsildar in favour of respondent No. 1 is contrary to law, hence, the order is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has contended that the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to entertain the Revision and it considered the merits of the case, hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed writ petition by the appellant. 7. In regard to jurisdiction to entertain the Revision by the Board of Revenue Book Circular, which prescribes an appeal and Revision, a Revision is maintainable against the order passed by the Commissionner in appeal before the State Government. Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code prescribes provision of Revision, which is as under:- “50. 7. In regard to jurisdiction to entertain the Revision by the Board of Revenue Book Circular, which prescribes an appeal and Revision, a Revision is maintainable against the order passed by the Commissionner in appeal before the State Government. Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code prescribes provision of Revision, which is as under:- “50. Revision.(1) The Board of Revenue or the Commissioner or the [Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer] [xxx] may at any time on its/his motion or on the application made by any party for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it/him call for, and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by such officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit.” 8. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Board of Revenue has power to entertain the Revision against the order passed by the Revenue officer. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in this regard is in accordance with law.” 5. On perusal of the Division Bench judgment, it is clear that the Board has erred in not entertaining the appeal. Accordingly, in view of binding judgment of Division Bench aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the Board has erred in not entertaining the appeal. Accordingly, the order dated 05.06.2012 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue to hear the matter on merits. Petition is allowed. No costs. ...................