Skip to content


Kuar Indrajit Singh Vs. the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Petn. No. 81 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1973MP22
ActsMadhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 2 and 42; Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Sections 11, 50 and 56
AppellantKuar Indrajit Singh
RespondentThe Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior and anr.
Appellant AdvocateR.L. Sharma, ;P.S. Khirwadkar and ;K.L. Issrani, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateJ.P. Bajpai, Deputy Adv. General
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases Referred and (Madanlal v. Chansdeo Sugar Mills Ltd
Excerpt:
- .....by the commissioner's order, the petitioner filed a revision under section 50 of the m. p. land revenue code. 1959, before the board of revenue. the learned president of the board of revenue relying on his decision in shivgovind v. state of m. p.. 1968 revenue nirnaya 400 held that the revision did not lie to the board and dismissed it accordingly. 3. the petitioner then filed this petition under article 226 of the constitution. this petition, along with misc. petn. no. 480 of 1968. (ravishankar v. board of revenue) was referred to this bench as there had occurred a conflict of opinion between division bench decisions of this court. 4. in misc. petn. no. 480 of 1968 (supra), it has been held as follows:-- (1) those who exercise original jurisdiction under the m. p. ceiling on.....
Judgment:

Shiv Dayal, J.

1. Proceedings under Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. 1960 (hereinafter called the Ceiling Act) were taken against the petitioner. The competent authority (Sub-Divisional Officer, Nasrullaganj) by his order dated Dec. 26. 1968, rejecting the petitioner's contentions directed draft statement to be published under Section 11 (3) of the Ceiling Act.

Aggrieved by the draft statement, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 42 of the Act before the Revenue Commissioner. Bhopal Division. Bhopal. The Commissioner heard the revision and dismissed it on merits, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to exemption under Section 3 (k) of the Ceiling Act.

2. Aggrieved by the Commissioner's order, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 1959, before the Board of Revenue. The learned President of the Board of Revenue relying on his decision in Shivgovind v. State of M. P.. 1968 Revenue Nirnaya 400 held that the revision did not lie to the Board and dismissed it accordingly.

3. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This petition, along with Misc. Petn. No. 480 of 1968. (Ravishankar v. Board of Revenue) was referred to this Bench as there had occurred a conflict of opinion between Division Bench decisions of this Court.

4. In Misc. Petn. No. 480 of 1968 (supra), it has been held as follows:--

(1) Those who exercise original jurisdiction under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. 1960, are of three categories:

No. I. A 'Revenue Officer' within the meaning of Section 11 of the M, P. Land Revenue Code acting as a 'competent authority' as defined in Section 2 (e) of thp Ceiling Act.

No 2. Such 'Revenue Officer', acting otherwise than as such 'competent authority'.

No. 3. Such 'competent authority' who is not such Revenue Officer.

(2) In case of No. 1 or No. 2:--

(a) From every order (other than an interlocutory order) an appeal lies under Section 41 (i) of the Ceiling Act to an appellate authority competent to hear the appeal as specified in Section 44 (1) of the Land Revenue Code. Besides the Board of Revenue, all such appellate authorities are 'Revenue Officers' within the meaning of Section 11 of the Land Revenue Code.

(b) From an order passed in appeal under Section 41 (i) of the Ceiling Act, a second appeal does not lie under Section 44 (2) of the Land Revenue Code inasmuch as the order is not 'under that Code or the rules made thereunder'.

(c) From an order passed in appeal under Section 41 (i) of the Ceiling Act, a revision lies under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, read with Section 56 of the Code.

(d) From an interlocutory order also, a revision lies in case of No. 2, under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code and, in case of No. 1, under Section 42 of the Ceiling Act.

(e) Power of revision under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code can be exercised suo motu by the competent revisional authority even when the order is appealable.

(3) In case of No. 3:--

(a) From every order (other than an interlocutory order) an appeal lies under Section 41 (ii) to the Board of Revenue.

(b) From an order passed by the Board of Revenue in such appeal, the question of second appeal or revision does not arise.

(c) From an interlocutory order, revision lies under Section 42 of the Ceiling Act.

(d) Power of revision under Sec. 42 of the Ceiling Act can be exercised suo motu by the competent revisional authority, even when the order is appealable.

(e) Since by virtue of Section 2 (p) of the Ceiling Act read with Section 11 of the Land Revenue Code, the Commissioner exercises jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Ceiling Act as 'Revenue Officer.' a revision will lie from his order to the Board of Revenue under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code read with its explanation and Section 56 of that Code.

(4) The expression 'every order' in Section 41 of the Ceiling Act means an order which determines the rights and liabilities of the parties: it does not include within its purview interlocutory orders which do not affect any right or liability of the parties, but are merely steps taken towards the final adjudication and for assisting parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceedings; they regulate the procedure only.

(5) By virtue of Section 56 of the Land Revenue Code, an order passed by a Revenue Officer under the Ceiling Act is revisable under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code.

(6) The expression 'for the time being in force' refers to the time when the order in question is passed: not to the date of the commencement of the enactment in which it occurs.

(7) The wider import bestowed upon the word 'order' in Section 56 of the Land Revenue Code is curtailed by the restrictive provision in Section 44 (11 of the Code, so that an order Passed 'under any other enactment' is not appealable under that section.

(8) Sub-sections must be read as parts of an integral whole. No sub-section can be read as divorced from or independent of the others unless to do so results in absurdity (Gurmej Singh v. Pratap Singh). AIR 1960 SC 122 and (Madanlal v. Chansdeo Sugar Mills Ltd) AIR 1962 SC 1543. A second appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code, lies only from an order passed in appeal under Sub-section (1) of that section.

(9) The right of appeal is a substantive right: it is a creature of the statute: it must be expressly conferred by the statute: it cannot be implied nor borrowed bv analogy from another enactment.

(10) The impact of Section 49 of the Ceiling Act is not to make the Act a self-contained one: it merely gives overriding effect to the provisions of that Act in case of inconsistency with the provisions of another enactment etc.

(11) A Revenue Officer, while exercising powers under the Ceiling Act is not a 'persona designata' which expressions refers to a person who is pointed out or described as an individual as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class or as filling a particular character.

5. This petition is therefore, allowed. It is held that the petitioner's revision lay before the Board of Revenue from the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 42 of the Ceiling Act. The order of the Board of Revenue is quashed. The Board of Revenue shall decide the revision according to law. Parties shall bear their own costs. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.

A.P. Sen and Singh, JJ.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the draft statement prepared by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Ceiling Act filed a revision before the Commissioner. Bhopal Division under Section 42 of the Act, which was dismissed on July 31, 1969. Against the order of the Commissioner the petitioner filed a revision in the Board of Revenue. The revision was dismissed by the Board on November 25. 1969, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Board. This petition was heard along with Misc. Petn. No. 480 of 1968 (Madh Pra). In that petition, which we have decided today, we have held that an order of the Commissioner Passed in revision under Section 42 of the Ceiling Act is revisable by the Board under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Board, therefore, was in error in holding that the revision was not maintainable.

7. The petition is allowed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue on November 25 1'969 is quashed and the Board is directed to rehear the revision according to law. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. The amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.

BY THE COURT

8. In accordance with the order of majority this petition is allowed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue on November 25, 1969, is quashed and the Board is directed to rehear the revision according to law. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //