ANANDRAO LAXMANRAO MANDLOI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

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: on 11-5-1955 respondent No. 5 Raghunath put forward a claim before the Tehsildar Kasrawad by means of an application under Section 21 of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act (hereinafter called the Act) for conferment of the rights of a Pacca Tenant claiming himself to be a subtenant of land bearing Khasra Nos. 39 and 43 of Mouja Lakhangaon. This claim was opposed by the present petitioner Anandrao Mandloi who is the brother of ex-Jagirdar Shankarrao of Lakhangaon who denied the status of Raghunath and claimed himself to be a tenant cultivating the said land personally. His case before the Tehsildar was that Raghunath was merely his 'sardar' or partner upto the agricultural year ending on 15-6-1953 and that at the date of his application under Section 21 of the act he was no longer in possession of the field. The case of Raghunath was that he was in possession of the field as sub-tenant upto the year 1953-54 and that he had been forcibly ousted by the petitioner anandrao in that year. The Tehsildar. by his order dated 25-8-1955 under Section 23 of the Act, rejected the claim of Raghunath on a finding that he was not in possession of the field since two years before the date of his application and that consequently ho will not be entitled to be declared as a Pucca Tenant. An appeal was preferred by Raghunath against this decision of the Tehsildar under section 28 of the Act to the Collector who in his decision dated 5-3-1956 held that the possession, contemplated under the provisions of the Act for claiming the rights of a Pucca Tenant, is the possession on the date of vesting i. e. on 7-121951. He therefore remanded the case for an enquiry as to who was in actual possession of the field on that date and for disposal of the case on that basis. Against this order of remand Anandrao preferred a revision petition. This was rejected and the order of remand was confirmed. The matter thereupon went to the Tehsildar for the enquiry referred to in the order of remand. The Tehsildar found, by his order dated 29-11-1956, that Survey No. 43 alone was in the possession of Raghunath on the date of vesting and not Survey No. 39. He was accordingly held entitled to the rights of a Pucca Tenant with reference to survey no. 43 only. Roth the parties preferred appeals against the decision to the collector under Section 28 of the Act. The Collector held that Raghunath was in possession of the whole of Khasra No. 39 and half of Khasra No. 43. He further held that Anandrao was entitled to only double the land revenue by way of compensation and not six times as held by the Tehsildar. Anandrao felt aggrieved by this decision of the Collector and preferred a revision petition (o the Board of revenue, This was not entertained by the Board on the ground that Section 28 of the Act excluded their jurisdiction since under that Section the Collector's order passed in the appeal had become final

(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.