JUDGMENT : Heard, Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, Senior Advocate instructed by Sri. Millu Dandapani on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. Rajeev Jyothish George, learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P9 order issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner is the owner of 37 cents of land in Vadakkancheri Village in Alathur Taluk of Palakkad District. The properties were purchased as per document No.3306/2014 of Sub Registrar Office, Alathur. The property has access to the National Highway on one side. The petitioner through one of his relatives applied to the Indian Oil Corporation for allotment of a petrol pump on 20.04.2015. The Indian Oil Corporation wrote Ext.P4 letter to the applicant wherein certain directions have been issued regarding the development of the land. The petitioner made a request through the District Collect for No Objection Certificate for starting the Petroleum outlet, to the Vadakkancheri Panchayat which was considered at the meeting held on 14.09.2015 by the Panchayat. By Ext.P5, it was decided to inform the District Collector that the Panchayat has unanimously decided to issue No Objection Certificate for starting the Petroleum outlet in the said property. By Ext.P6, the decision of the Panchayat was informed to the District Collector. On 03.07.2015, the Tahsildar, Alathur wrote to the District Collector Ext.P7 letter wherein it is stated that the property has been lying as fallow land for more than 7 years and it does not form part of the forest land or 'puramboke' or excess land. It is further stated in the letter that the properties to the East and North are 'purayidams'. The Tahsildar further stated that in the Data Bank, the land is shown as fallow land but it does not appear that permission for conversion has been obtained. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer by Ext.P8 order dated 05.12.2015 considered the applications and granted permission under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for setting up a Petroleum outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation in the land subject to certain conditions. Almost 19 months thereafter on 30.06.2017, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P9 order setting aside Ext.P8 order and issuing further directions. Ext.P9 states that the District Collector had submitted a report against Ext.P8 order, which is being treated as an appeal by the Land Revenue Commissioner. 4. Almost 19 months thereafter on 30.06.2017, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P9 order setting aside Ext.P8 order and issuing further directions. Ext.P9 states that the District Collector had submitted a report against Ext.P8 order, which is being treated as an appeal by the Land Revenue Commissioner. 4. The Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that appellate right or an appeal is a creation of the Statute and unless there is a provision for an appeal, the same cannot be maintained. Reference is made to Clause 11 of the Land Utilization Order which says that any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector may prefer an appeal to the Board of Revenue within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Board of Revenue has been replaced by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Going by the provisions, an appeal is preferable by a person who is aggrieved by an order of the Collector. The word 'Collector' has been defined in Kerala Land Utilization Order to include a Revenue Divisional Officer of the division concerned. So an order issued by a Collector includes an order issued by a Revenue Divisional Officer also. The author of the order cannot be a person aggrieved by the order. As such, even if the Collector has a different opinion about an order passed by a Revenue Division Officer, the same cannot be corrected by means of an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner at the instance of the Collector. 5. I find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the Senior Counsel. When an appeal itself is not maintainable at the instance of the Collector, the Land Revenue Commissioner did not have any authority to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P9. In view of the fact that the order itself is without authority, this Court does not deem it fit to go into the merits of the contentions raised by either side. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 is quashed.