KODAN RANGLAL POWER Vs. BOMBAY REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal dated November 7, 1957, and for issue of such other writ, order or direction as may be approved. This petition was heard along with Special Civil Applications Nos. 92/58, 93/58 and 109/58.

(2.) IN all these petitions the point taken is that the Bombay Revenue Tribunal was in error in dismissing the appeals before it upon the basis of the decision in Surendraraj v. State of Bombay [1958] N.L.J. 282. That is a decision of a Full Bench of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal itself. Since the facts out of which these petitions arise are somewhat different it will be desirable to make separate mention of the facts out of which each petition arises.

(3.) IN Surendraraj's case a Full Bench of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal held that Section 40 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act is not saved by Section 241 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and that, therefore, though the M.P. Land Revenue Code came into force during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal had lapsed and could not be proceeded with. One of the principles of construction upon which the Bombay Revenue Tribunal proceeded was quoted with approval by the learned Judges of the Nagpur High Court in Chhote Khan v. Mohammad Obedullakhan [1953] Nag 702, S.B. That principle is that a repeal will generally divest all inchoate rights which have arisen under the repealed statute and destroy all accrued causes of action based thereon and that as a result, such a repeal, without the saving clause, will destroy any proceedings, whether not yet begun, or whether pending at the time of the enactment of the repealing Act, and not already prosecuted to a final judgment, so as to create a vested right.