BUCHI REDDY Vs. MALLAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the respondents, that the petitions out of which these revision petitions arise were filed before Section 91 was substituted by Act 3 of 1954 which provides a revision to the High Court. Under the old Act when the proceedings were initiated there was a second appeal to the Revenue Board and a revision to the Government. As the petitioner has not adopted those remedies he cannot avail of the remedy which was made available only in 1954. This question fell for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Velupda Raji&a v. Ahmed Bin Nazir While it was recognised that the remedies available to the suitors on the day when the proceedings were initiated cannot be taken away without express language to that effect or which leads necesarily to that conclusion, it was held that this right was not absolute and could always be taken away by subsequent legislation. The question therefore which fell for their Lordships' consideration was whether Section 91 takes away the right to C R P No 1229 and 1230 of 1962. D/19-8-1965. 1. 1960 A. L. T. 942-(1960) II An, W. R. 334. file second appeal and revision under the old Act under which the proceeding in that case were initiated. It was held that the non-obstante clause appearing at the outset of Section 91 makes that Section retrospective and takes away the right to have recourse to the remedies available at the time when the proceedings [were initiated. It was found that the right to pursue the remedies then available is not conferred on the suitors by any statute, but is ; recognised by a long series of judgments which also is law. The non-obstante clause is applicaple to this law. In spite of this right it was held by their Lordships that the old remedies would not be available to the suitors but instead revision to the High Court alone would be the remedy. In view of this decision I do not agree with the contention advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the respondents, that Sec. 90 of the old Act which provides remedy of second appeal to the Board of Revenue and revision to the Government still continues to be in operation, It is to be noted that Section 90 .which was also amended in 1954 takes away the right of second appeal and instead, as stated earlier, provides ; a revision to the High Court under Section 91, In the above said decision this aspect of the matter also was considered,

(2.) The other argument which remains for consideration is whether the order of the Collector could be sustained. The order is not only cursory but does not disclose what facts fell for consideration of the Collector and what his decision is.

(3.) It has beeen time and again held by this Court that the Collector's Tribunal is a Tiibunal of appeal and has therefore to decide'all necessary questions of fact arising' in the case as well as the questions of law, He cannot, by mere reference to some old orders which were set aside for whatever reason it may be, say that, he still tricks on to the fold view. He has to hear the parties and decide afresh on the material available the disputes involved in the case, I am satisfied that the order of the Collector is unsatisfactory and has therefore to be set aside. These revision petitions therefore are allowed, the order of the Collector set aside and the cases remitted to the Collector to dispose of the appeals in accordance with the law, There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.