It, therefore, set aside the order of the Board to the extent the Board exercised power under Section 38 B and directed that the Tehsildar should reconsider the application on the administrative side and reach a decision on his own.
If it had been an order made on the quasi judicial side, the High Court would have held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 38 B and there would have been numberoccasion to interfere with the order.
In other words, according to the High Court, the Tehsildars order was an administrative order.
It appears that the appellant moved the Tehsildar for a declaration that she was the tenant of the land in question before its vesting in the State Government.
It is against that order that the appellant moved the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
Now that is precisely the objection on the basis of which the High Court proceeded to annul the order.
Leave granted.
