BONDAR Vs. GANPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six petitions involve a common question of law, namely whether a revision lies against an order passed by the Collector concerned under Section 28 of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act (No. XXVIII of 1951) on an appeal filed against the decision given by the Tehsildar under section 21 of the said Act. This order shall govern all the aforesaid petitions in so far as the determination of this common question of law is concerned.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the Petitioners have filed applications under Section 21 of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act before the Tehsildar concerned for the grant of pakka tenancy rights with respect to certain fields. The claim was resisted by the non -Petitioners and was wholly or partly disallowed by the Tehsildar. The appeals filed by the Petitioners against the orders passed by the Tehsildar were dismissed by the Collector. The Petitioners thereupon filed applications in revision before the Board of Revenue (Madhya Pradesh) against the order of the Collector. On a preliminary objection being raised as to the maintainability of the revision petitions, it was held by the Board of Revenue that the order passed by the Collector on appeal was final and no specific provision for a revision having been made in Act No. XXVIII of 1951, the revision applications were unmaintainable.

(3.) THE Petitioners contend that the Tehsildar, who is empowered under Section 21 of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act is a revenue officer subordinate to the Board of Revenue and that even though no provision has been made in the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act empowering the Board of Revenue to entertain a petition in revision against the order passed by the Collector on appeal in such cases, the provisions of Section 39 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act would apply to the said proceedings and a revision application would be competent. It is, therefore, contended that the Board of Revenue by holding the revision petitions to be unmaintainable has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law.