BHAGWANDAS MOTIRAM MARWARI Vs. BOMBAY REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur, transferring an appeal preferred by the petitioner and pending before it to the Commissioner, Nagpur, for disposal. According to the Tribunal, by virtue of Section 8 of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act (Act VIII of 1958) an appeal of this kind has to be transferred to the Commissioner for disposal. The appeal in question arose out of an order made by the Sub -Divisional Officer upon an application made by respondent No. 4 under Section 19 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951.

(2.) IN coming to the conclusion that the appeal has to be transferred to the Commissioner, the Revenue Tribunal has relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in Vishweshar Rao v. State of Bombay [1958] N.L.J. 505. Section 8 of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act runs thus :-

(3.) IN our opinion, however, the word 'authority' cannot, at any rate in the particular context, be deemed to include a tribunal which is entrusted with the exercise of purely judicial powers. The word 'authority' literally means a body exercising executive, administrative or legislative power and is usually used by the Legislature to indicate subordinate agencies i.e. agencies subordinate to the Executive Government, entrusted with the exercise of executive or administrative or quasi -judicial power. It is also used to denote agencies such as independent or semi -independent Corporations to which power has been delegated by Government or upon which power to exercise executive or administrative functions is conferred by the Legislature. The term 'authority' cannot be deemed to include a Court or any other judicial tribunal. In our opinion, therefore, that term, as used in Section 8, would not include a tribunal like the Bombay Revenue Tribunal, which is entrusted with the duty of adjudicating upon the rights of persons judicially. Now, if the word 'authority' is given the meaning accorded to it by the Full Bench of the Revenue Tribunal, then it would mean that the Revenue Tribunal must transfer every proceeding pending before it, whether it is an appeal or a rivision and which falls 'within the purview of the power and duties of the Commissioner' to the Commissioner. The result of this would be that a Revenue Tribunal which has been constituted by the Revenue Tribunals Act of 1939, would be bereft of almost all its work and will have hardly anything to do. It could not have been the intention of the Legislature to deprive the tribunal of its work and strike at the very root of its existence.