SHYAMKISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to the Full Bench is, whether it is competent for the Board of Revenue to revise an order passed by the Collector in exercise of his appellate powers under Section 28 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Bondar v. Ganpat, 1960 MP LJ 1278 had taken the view that notwithstanding the provision in Section 28 referred to above the Collector's decision is open to revision by the Board of Revenue. This question again came up for consideration before the Division Bench consisting of myself and Krishnan, J. It was contended before us that although in the absence of any statutory provision the principle laid down in the case of National Telephone Co. Ltd. v. Post Master General, (1913) A. C. 546 and approved by the Supreme Court in AIR 1953 SC 357, National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros. , Ltd. will apply. Section 34 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act clearly negatives such power of revision in the Board of Revenue. In the earlier case of 1960 MP LJ 1278 the exact impact of Section 84 (2) of the M. B. Abolition of Jagirs Act on this question did not appear to us to be fully appreciated and as we felt that the said section appeared to exclude the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue or for the matter of that of any authority functioning under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act it was considered advisable to refer the question to Full Bench.

(2.) THE facts material for the purpose of the present reference are fully stated in the order of reference. They are as follows:

(3.) ANANDRAO thereupon submitted this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that there was an erroneous refusal on the part of the Board of Revenue to exercise jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari is sought for quashing the said decision and for a direction to the Board of Revenue to hear the revision petition and to dispose it of according to law.