HARJI Vs. REVENUE BOARD OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case appear in the order of reference and it is not necessary to repeat them here. It would suffice to say that an application made by Harji under Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, for reinstatement was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk, and a revision application, which was filed by the landlord against the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer, was dismissed by the Rajasthan Board of Revenue. The landlord then filed a review application which was accepted and the order for reinstatement passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside. The tenant then filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. The question then arose whether in a case under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance the Rajasthan Board of Revenue was competent to review its own judgment. A Division Bench of this Court, as the question was of general importance, referred the following point to a Full Bench: "Whether the Rajasthan Revenue Board is competent to review its own judgment in a case under the Rajasthan Tenants Protection Ordinance, 1950 from the territories of the former Tonk State, by virtue of the provisions of the Land Regulations of Tonk or of the Civil P. C.?"

(2.) In the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, there is no provision for the exercise of the powers of review by the Rajasthan Board of Revenue in cases which come before it under Section 10 (2) of the Ordinance. The learned counsel of the petitioner has cited a decision of this Court in 'NATHULAL v. COLLECTOR SAWAI JAIPUR', Civil Revn. No. 6 of 1950, D/- 8-1-1951 in which it has been observed that it is settled law that a case is not open to appeal unless the Statute gives such a right and the power to review must also be given by the statute. Prima facie a party who has obtained a decision is entitled to keep it unassailed unless the legislature has indicated the mode by which it can be set aside. The principles laid down in 'ANANTHARAJU SHETTEY v. APPU HEGADE', AIR 1919 Mad 244, were approved in the judgment of this Court referred to above. In 'AIR 1919 Mad 244' it has been held that except in special cases where the previous judgment of a Court is void or it has been passed by inadvertence of the Court or on account of fraud or some such other grounds a Court cannot review its own decision unless it is permitted to do so by statute. It is therefore a well settled principle of law that leaving exceptional cases apart unless a Court is empowered by statute to review its own judgment it cannot review it. The learned Government Advocate has however argued that in the present case the Rajasthan Board of Revenue was authorised to review its own judgment by virtue of Sections 190, 191 and 251 of Tonk Regulations. Section 190 of Tonk Regulations gives a list of cases which could be entertained by the Revenue Courts of the Tonk State and it is evident that the scope of the list is wide enough to include cases relating to reinstatement of tenants. Section 191 of the Tonk Regulations provides that Civil suits hearable by the Revenue Courts shall be dealt with as laid down in Civil P. C. (Act V (5) of 1908). It is contended that the Civil P. C. is applicable to the proceedings of the Revenue Board in cases coming from the territories of the former Tonk State, by virtue of Section 191 oif the Tonk Regulations. The language of Section 191, it may be pointed out, is not very clear in this behalf. Civil suits hearable by the Revenue Courts cannot mean Revenue cases or the cases specified in Section 190 of the Tonk Regulations. It may be that the Revenue Courts in the former Tonk State were authorised to hear certain Civil Suits and the provision of Section 191 of said Regulations was therefore made to govern the proceedings of the Civil suits cognizable by the Revenue Courts. It cannot therefore be inferred from Section 191 of the Regulations, that the Code of Civil Procedure was made applicable to the Revenue Courts in dealing with Revenue cases coming before them. Section 251 of the Tonk Regulations is as follows: "The definition of review and the procedure under which the review is heard are given in Order XLVII. All reviews shall be dealt with under that Order." These sections are headed by the following words: "The following instructions and notes are issued for the guidance of the officers and clerks concerned."

(3.) It would be clear that Section 251 is intended to serve as an instruction for the guidance of the officers. It is not a substantive piece of law. Moreover these instructions are intended to be followed in the trial of civil suits when they are heard by Revenue Courts. Section 251 of the Regulations, therefore, has no application to the case of a revenue suit in a Revenue Court. Sections 190, 191 and 251 therefore cannot help the case of the opposite party. It was further argued by the learned Government Advocate that the Rajasthan Board of Revenue inherited the jurisdiction of the Revenue Boards functioning in the various States' of Rajasthan which were merged in the United State of Rajasthan, He has produced a number of records from the archives of the former Tonk State in some of which the Revenue Member of the former Tonk State reviewed his own judgments in Revenue cases. The practice of the Tonk State Courts in reviewing their own judgments cannot help the case of the opposite party as a practice cannot be considered to be at par with a statute. Such a practice of the Tonk Revenue Courts cannot be followed by the Rajasthan Board of Revenue when it cannot be considered to be in accordance with the recognised principles of law.