VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the Petitioners have assailed the validity of the orders of the Collector, Ambikapur district Surguja, the 2nd Respondent herein, dated 17-07-2006 and 01-06-2006, passed in Second Appeal No. 1/A-6/2004-05, in case of Kumari Nirusha Agrawal v. Govt. P.G. College, Ambikapur and Ors.. The 2nd Respondent on an application made by the Respondent No. 3rd herein, under Section 30 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code"), passed the order on 01-06-2006 withdrawing Second Appeal No. l/A-6/2004-05 from the file of Additional Collector, Ambikapur to his file for hearing and disposal of the same. The Petitioners herein who are the main contesting parties in the Second Appeal No. 1/A-6/ 2004-05 moved an application on 26-06-2006 before the 2nd Respondent when they came to know about the order made by the 2nd Respondent on 01-06-2006 requesting the 2nd Respondent to recall his order dated 01-06-2006 and hear the application filed by the 3rd Respondent de novo and pass appropriate order. The said application was also rejected by the 2nd Respondent on 17-07-2006. It appears that feeling aggrieved by the above orders of the 2nd Respondent dated 01-06-2006 and 17-07-2006, the Petitioners have preferred revision under Section 50 of the Code to the Board of Revenue on 20-07-2006 and the said revision is pending. When the matter stood thus, the Petitioners have moved this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the aforementioned two orders passed by the 2nd Respondent.

(2.) I have heard Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Shri Utkarsh Verma, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/ State authorities. It was contended by Shri Paranjpe that the 2nd Respondent ought not have withdrawn the Second Appeal No. l/A-6/2004-05 from the file of Additional Collector, Ambikapur to his file on the basis of the application made by the 3rd Respondent, that too, without notice to the Petitioners and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners. It was contended by the learned Counsel that though Section 30 of the Code does not mention any circumstance or ground on which the power of transfer or withdrawal of a case is to be exercised by the Revenue Officers mentioned therein, but, it does not mean that the power can be exercised by the officers mentioned therein just for the sake of asking by an interested party. Learned Counsel would also submit that the power conferred by the Revenue Officers under Section 30 of the Code is required to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that though Section 30 of the Code does not specifically provide for compliance of the principles of natural justice, the named officers therein before exercising the power under that Section ought to comply with the principles of natural justice and if it is so, the order passed by the 2nd Respondent on 01-06-2006 is liable to be set aside if not for any other reason but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, per contra, would contend that the power conferred on the Revenue Officers specified under Section 30 is an administrative power and not quasi-judicial as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and therefore, there is no legal obligation for the officers named therein to comply with the principle of natural justice before exercising the power under that Section. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Code reads as follows:

(3.) In the premise of the above-noted case law, when you look at the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Code, it is crystal clear that the power conferred on the Collector is administrative in nature. When a Collector exercises the power of transfer or withdrawal of a case, that action does not affect or impair in any way any of the legal rights of the parties to the case. It is true that in some cases transfer or withdrawal of a case may inconvenience a party to such case, but only on that count the power conferred on the Collector could not be regarded as quasi-judicial in nature. Since the order that may be made by a Collector for transferring a case from his file or withdrawing a case from another officer's file to his own file does not affect or impair any of the legal rights of the parties to such case, giving of a notice is not necessary before passing such order.