RATNA @ RATAN LAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these nine appeals, which have been listed for analogous hearing, objection to maintainability of these intra-court appeals, has been raised on common grounds.

(2.) All these appeals arise out of orders passed in writ petitions by the learned Single Judges. Insofar as D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 756/2022, 781/2021, 785/2022, 977/2022, 996/2022, 999/2022 and 222/2023 are concerned, they arise out of orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9521/2013, 11851/2013, 11852/2013 and 19076/2022 filed before the learned Single Judge assailing orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board of Revenue') in exercise of its power of revision provided under Sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956').

(3.) Mr. R.K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised an objection with regard to maintainability of these intra-court appeals on the submission that various revenue proceedings were brought before the Board of Revenue in suits seeking declaration of various rights and the revenue courts while deciding the suits exercised judicial function, which is akin to judicial function of the civil courts, in respect of those matters where the jurisdiction of civil courts is expressly barred under the provisions of the Act of 1956 and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955'). The decrees and orders passed by the revenue courts at the first instance, in exercise of original jurisdiction were taken in appeal before the revenue appellate authorities and finally to highest court of appeal and/or revision being the Board of Revenue in the hierarchy of revenue courts. Therefore, it is contended, the Board of Revenue exercised jurisdiction as appellate and/or revisional authority to examine the matters arising out of revenue suits and thereby exercised judicial function as 'Court' for all legal and practical purposes. Hence, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue exercising such powers and functions as highest revenue court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction, but are subject only to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Board of Revenue, being a revenue court, as defined under Sec. 5(35) of the Act of 1955 and even though, strictly speaking, it is not the civil court but definitely has trappings of Court exercising special jurisdiction in respect of the matters provided under the Act of 1955 and the Act of 1956 as the jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly barred. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the provisions contained in Sec. 5 subsec. 34-A, Sec. 5 sub-sec. (35); Sec. 53; Ss. 88 to 92 and Sec. 208 of the Act of 1955 to submit that the revenue courts, while exercising jurisdiction in the matter of revenue suits, function as judicial court and, therefore, decrees as also orders which are ultimately passed by the revenue courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another vs. Chhabi Nath and Others[(2015) 5 SCC 423]. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ethiopian Airlines vs. Ganesh Narain Saboo[(2011) 8 SCC 539]; Trans Mediterranean Airways vs. Universal Exports and Another[(2011) 10 SCC 316]; and Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Others[(2019) 3 SCC 692].