R. THUMBANADHAM Vs. BASU BEHERA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the correctness of the order of the Deputy Collector, dated 31st July, 1951, passed in execution of some rent decrees obtained by the Petitioner against the opposite parties. The facts, in brief are these. The Petitioner obtained a number of rent decrees against the opposite parties and put them in execution. The holdings of the opposite parties were advertised for sale, after due proclamation, and the execution petitions were posted to 4th August, 1951 for holding the sales. Meanwhile, on the 26th July, 1951 the opposite parties applied to the Collector under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the decrees obtained against them be set aside by his order dated the 31st July 1951, the Deputy Collector in charge of the execution directed that the sales should be stopped pending disposal of the petitions filed by the opposite parties for -setting aside the exparte decree. The Petitioner went up in revision to the District Collector, under Section 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The District Collector while upholding the order of the Deputy Collector directed that the opposite parties should" make a deposit of 10 per cent of the decretal amounts. Against this order the opposite parties went up to the Board of Revenue in revision again under Section 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act. Mr. Ramanathan, the Member in Charge, by his order dated 3rd January 1952, held that although the Revenue Board had no jurisdiction under Section 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act to interfere with an order already passed under that Section by the Collector, it could still interfere with that order under the provisions of the Orissa Board of Revenue Act (XXIII) 1951. The Member committed an error of record in thinking that the petitions filed by the opposite parties were for setting aside the "ex -parte order for sale". The correctness of this order of the Board of Revenue is challenged in this application.

(2.) SECTION 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act vests the revisional jurisdiction in the Member, Board of Revenue, or the District Collector, who may call for the records and pass such orders as may be proper. It is well established that the jurisdiction conferred by this Section upon the Board of Revenue is concurrent with that conferred on the District Collector so that, if one of these Officers exercise the jurisdiction, the power is exhausted. It was therefore not competent for the Board of Revenue, to sit in revision over an order already passed by the District Collector under Section 205 of the Estates Land Act. The Member however appears to have refused the correctness of the position taken before him, but nevertheless claimed jurisdiction to interfere under the provisions of Orissa Act XXIII of 1951. Before discussing whether he has any such power, or not, I should like to refer to Section 189(1) of the Madras Estates Land Act, which expressly says that "the District Collector or Collector exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act does so as a Revenue Court and not as a Revenue officer. Apart from the provisions at this Act the Board of Revenue has no power of supervision or revisional jurisdiction over the District Collector. I am not therefore satisfied that the Board of Revenue, as such, can interfere with any judicial order passed by a Revenue Court. Apart from this, I do not see any justification for the view taken by the Member, Board of Revenue, as the Orissa Board of Revenue Act (Orissa Act XXIII) of 1951, on which he relies does not purport to confer any such extraordinary supervisory power over the Courts subordinate to the Board of Revenue. On the other hand, Section 8(2) of the Act expressly excludes any such power. That Section is as follows:

(3.) WE are therefore satisfied that the orders passed by the several Revenue officers, from the Deputy Collector upwards are not warranted by law and were made without jurisdiction. This application is accordingly allowed and the Deputy Collector is directed to proclaim the holdings for sale once again, and then dispose of the execution petitions filed by the Petitioner according to law. The Petitioner will have the costs of this application. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/ - ( Rupees one hundred only).