SADIQUA BEGUM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants against certain orders of the Revenue Officers under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (for short, 'Abolition Act') which came into force sometime in the year 1951. By virtue of S. 6 of the Abolition Act all transfers made by proprietors at any time after 16th March 1950 were deemed to be void unless declared valid by the Collector on a proper application made to him. The transferees, in view of the aforesaid provisions, filed applications before the Collector in 1964 who validated the transfers by his order dated 6th June 1964. Against the order of the Collector a revision was taken by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under S. 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The transferees objected to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner on the ground that he had no power to revise the order of the Collector. This contention was rejected by the Commissioner and hence a revision was taken to the Board of Revenue which confirmed the view of the Commissioner. It was against this order that the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court assailing the orders of the Commissioner as also the Board of Revenue.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants contended that any order passed under S. 6 of the Abolition Act was not revisable under the Code because the Abolition Act was a Code or a law complete in itself and conferred no powers of revision or appeal outside the Abolition Act. Hence, it was contended, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain suo motu revision. In the second place, it was argued that under S. 84 of the Abolition Act appeals were provided against all orders passed by Revenue Officers and since there was a right of appeal provided under the Act, no revisional power could be exercised either by the Commissioner or by the Board of Revenue under the Code. It was also faintly urged before the High Court that the Revenue Officers when exercising powers under the Abolition Act were not exercising the powers as Revenue Officers but as a persona designata under the Abolition Act. In other words, the contention raised before the High Court, which was repeated before us, was that the Revenue Officers had a dual capacity:(1) under the Abolition Act, and (2) under the Code. The High Court, however, rejected the contention and, in our opinion, rightly.

(3.) A perusal of the schemes of the Abolition Act and the Code clearly indicates that the two Acts were in pari materia and the Revenue Officers were exercising powers under both the Acts cognately. There was no clearcut distinction between a Revenue Officer acting under the Abolition Act and acting under the Code. This being the position, it is manifest that the revisional powers could be exercised by the Revenue Officers under S. 50 of the Code and even under the Abolition Act as well. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court on this point and which was also not seriously challenged before us.