COLLECTOR Vs. BAVABHAI KARSHANBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, is challenged by the Collector, Rajkot, Deputy Collector, Rajkot, and Mamlatdar, Rajkot, by filing this Special Civil Application. It is surprising as to how the order passed by the Principal Secretary of the State can be challenged by the subordinate Officers, like the Collector, Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar. The Principal Secretary has exercised the powers under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code while entertaining revision application and, virtually, it is the power of the State Government, which is exercised by the Principal Secretary by passing the impugned order. The impugned order is passed in the name of the Governor of Gujarat and, therefore, in my view, such an order cannot be challenged by subordinate revenue officers, like the Collector, the Deputy Collector, or the Mamlatdar, as the case may be. Even on the basis of propriety, it was not open for the Collector to challenge the order of his superior by way of filing this petition. In future, the revenue authority may take proper care in instituting such proceedings, wherein the order passed by a superior Officer is sought to be challenged by the subordinate officer by filing proceedings. The Collector, the Deputy Collector or the Mamlatdar, as the case may be, is bound by the decision taken by the superior officer, exercising appellate power. In the instant case, the Principal Secretary has passed the impugned order exercising the powers of the State Government and the decision impugned, therefore, can be said to be the decision of the State Government itself and, therefore, rightly it is also mentioned in the order that the decision is taken in the name of the Governor of Gujarat. Still, the Collector, the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatdar have the audacity to challenge the said order by filing this petition. The petition, therefore, is not maintainable and cannot be entertained at the instance of the present petitioners.

(2.) At this stage, reference is required to be made to Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, which provides as under :-

(3.) The Principal Secretary, in the instant case, has exercised the powers under Section 211 of the Act and, accordingly, he has exercised the powers of the State Government itself. In my view, therefore, it is highly improper on the part of the Collector, the Deputy Collector or the Mamlatdar to challenge the decision of the Principal Secretary by filing this Special Civil Application. It is hoped that appropriate care will be taken in future before taking decision for challenging such order and filing such petition by subordinate revenue officer, challenging the order of the superior officer. Considering the Scheme of the Act, in my view, no such Special Civil Application at the instance of the present petitioners can be entertained in law and apart from that, even on the basis of propriety, it is not open for the Subordinate Officer to challenge the order of the superior officer by filing the petition to challenge the said decision unless specifically authorised by the State Government in that behalf. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this preliminary ground.