SUJAN SINGH Vs. DWARKA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these petitions the prayer is that, in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Board of Revenue and consequently the subordinate Revenue Authorities, such as, the Collector and the Commissioner, should be advised by this Court that an appeal does lie to the Collector from the order of the Tehsildar under Section 38 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act (No. 13 of 1951) in view of the general provisions in Section 35 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act (66 of 1950), and that the decision of the Board of Revenue to the contrary is wrong.

(2.) THE Board of Revenue has given the decision that an order by the Tehsildar under Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act is not appealable; a large number of appeals before the Collectors and the Commissioners were rejected and the appellants in those cases have all come up to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It appears that the present five applications are only part of a large batch of similar applications on the same ground and for the same advice to the Revenue Courts.

(3.) THIS would have been sufficient for the disposal of these applications as being without any force However, I note that these applicants and the Revenue Courts themselves have been going round and round. Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act is touching a sentence here and a clause there, without understanding its real purport. So it will be helpful if the legal position under that section is explained.