DAMODHAR BAPUJI KAREKAR Vs. BOMBAY REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will govern Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 512 of 1955, 75 of 1956 and 105 of 1956.

(2.) THE common question involved in all these petitions tinder Article 226 of the Constitution is whether an order made by a revenue officer rejecting an application of an ex -proprietor made under Rule 1 of the Rules for the reservation of land to ex -proprietors recorded as Bir, Chhota ghas, etc. vesting in the State, framed under Section 91(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, is appealable before the Board of Revenue under Section 84 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition Act.

(3.) IT is contended before us on behalf of the petitioners, and accepted by the Special Government Pleader on behalf of the State of Bombay, that the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Revenue is erroneous. Against the decision in the aforementioned case a writ petition was preferred before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. That petition came up before Choudhuri J. who referred the question as to the maintainability of an appeal before the Board of Revenue to a Division Bench. The decision of the Division Bench is reported in Gulab Bai v. The Board of Revenue, M.P. (1957) N.L.J. 134 in which it is held that the rules made by the State Government under Section 91(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act have the force of law and consequently the order made in a proceeding by the revenue officer under the rules is appealable under Section 84 of the Act, is also brought to our notice.