MANGILAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court (Vijayvargiya, J.), the following question has been referred to this Full Bench: -"

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the aforesaid question, briefly, are as follows : -

(3.) SHRI Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the provisions of Section 36 of the Act placed restrictions on the powers of the second appel-late Court, only when a second appeal was heard by the Board of Revenue, as was evident by a perusal of the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. It was urged that in any event, the decision of this Court in 1964 Rule n. 262 (supra) should not be disturbed on the basis of the doctrine of 'stare decisis'. When the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was invited to the Hindi version of the Act published in the Government Gazette dated 6th June, 1952, it was contended, that the English translation thereof published in the Gazette was the authorised text and it was not permissible to refer to the Hindi version of the Act published in the Gazette. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in Dayabhai Poonambhai v. Natwarlal Talati, (AIR 1957 Madh Pra 1), Municipal Corporation, Agra v. Gulzari (AIR 1965 All 170), Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited, Meerut v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (III), U. P. Allahabad, (AIR 1962 All 240) (FB), Smt. Ram Rati v. Gram Samaj, Jehwa (AIR 1974 All 106) (FB), Bhikam Chand v. State (AIR 1966 Raj 142 ). and Alok Kumar Agrawal v. State of Bihar (AIR 1976 ( Pat 392 ).