THAKURA HIMMATSINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writs of certiorari and mandamus, the petitioner an Ex-Jagirdar seeks to get the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 31-10-1981 quashed holding that the Board of Revenue had no power of review in respect of appeals decided by it against the orders of the Jagir Commissioner under section 29 of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, Samvat 2008 (Act No. 28 of 1931). The Board of Revenue, relying on its earlier decisions, as also other cases, held that once an appeal under section 29 of the Act was disposed of, there was no power of review and section 40 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) could not be invoked for ths purpose by virtue of section 30 of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, Samvat 2008. The petitioner challenges this view as incorrect; while the learned Government Advocate supports this on the reasoning of the learned Members constituting the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue.

(2.) SECTION 2 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, Samvat 2008 which is a definition section provides as follows:- "Words and expressions used in this Act but not defined in this Act shall have the same meaning as is assigned to them in Qanoon Mal, Gwalior State, Samvat 1983, or in the Madhya Bharat Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007, or in Qawaid Jagirdaran, Gwalior State, Samvat 1970, or in the Manual for Jagirdars of the Holkar State, 1928, as the case may be." According to the 3aid section, for any of the words not specifically defined by the Abolition of Jagirs Act, it is permissible to refer to the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 for a clarification.

(3.) THE Board of Revenue relied on the Division Bench case of this Court in Rajaram and others v. Rani Jamit Kunwar and others 1961 M PLJ 944. in holding that no inherent power of review exists in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, but it is a creation of the statute which places limitations in the manner provided. So far as this proposition is concerned, we are in full agreement with the same. That view was later on fallowed by another Division Bench of this Court in Deorao Jadhav v. Board of Revenue 1963 MPLJ Note No. 70 [M. P No. 10 of 1982, D /- 5-12-1962-Reported in 1992 M. P. Rev. Nir. 682 (December issue)]. But the later Division Bench has also taken the view that by virtue of section 30 of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, a review under section 40 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 lies. In that case, the Jagir Commissioner had reviewed his order. THE Board of Revenue expressed the opinion that section 30 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act did not empower the Jagir Commissioner to review his own order. But the Division Bench of the High Court consisting of Krishnan and Sharma JJ., took the contrary view and reversed the order of the Board of Revenue basing its conclusions on the Supreme Court case of Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and another v. THEir Workmen AIR 1958 SC 153..