NAND KISHORE Vs. RAM SUKHA AND STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference has been received from a Division Bench seeking an authoritative answer to the following question of law: - "whether in a matter under the Land Revenue Act an appeal under section 10 of the Act lies to Bench of two or more Members of the Board from the decision of a Member sitting singly if such decision does not attract the provisions of section 77 of the Act".

(2.) THE D. B was hearing a special appeal against an order of a Single Bench dated 24-6-72 accepting a revision petition filed by Ram Sukha and Dhanna under section 84 of the Land Revenue Act. It was argued before the D. B. that in view of section 74 of the Land Revenue Act the appeal was not maintainable. In this connection attention was drawn to a ruling of a Larger Bench in the case Sodagar Singh vs. Rewad Ram 1969 RRD 318. This held that a special appeal was barred in a matter covered by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in view of the specific prohibition in section 222 read with section 225. THE D. B. noted that this ruling of the L. B. pertained only to the Tenancy Act, but during the course of arguments attention was drawn to the view expressed by another D B. in Janta Khanpur vs. Bherun Singh 1973 RRD 55 to the effect that section 74 of the Land Revenue Act was analogous to section 222 of the Tenancy Act and therefore a special appeal was also barred under the former Act. It was observed that section 10 of the Land Revenue Act merely states how the jurisdiction of the Board is to be exercised and does not confer any right of appeal. THE learned Members who have made this reference did not agree with the view of the earlier D. B in the Janta Khanpur case and hence have sought an authoritative opinion.

(3.) SHRI Pareek has tried to lead us away from the specific reference and to attack the validity of the judgment of the Larger Bench in the Sodagar Singh case. He has pointed out that the reference before the Larger Bench there was limited to whether the term 'decision' used to section 10 of the Land Revenue Act includes an order of the Board of Revenue about the appointment of a receiver or grant of an injunction and whether a special appeal lies against such an order. The Board answered the reference as follow : "it is the considered opinion of this Larger Bench of the Board that the term 'decision' used in section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act does not include orders of the Board of Revenue passed in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the Board in regard to the appointment of a receiver or the grant of a temporary injunction in matters arising under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and further that in view of the specific provisions of sections 222 and 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and section 77 (b) of the Land Revenue Act a special appeal in terms of the proviso to section 10 (1) is barred". Shu Pareek says that the Larger Bench exceeded its terms of reference in passing certain gratuitous remarks that in view of the specific provisions of sections 222 and 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and section 77 (b) of the Land Revenue Act a special appeal in terms of the proviso to section 10 (1) is barred. He has traced the background against which the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and then the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 were brought into force and has stressed that the Tenancy Act came first and at its commencement there were no restrictions on the hearing of special appeals. He has deduced from this that it was not the intention of the Legislature to bar the hearing of special appeals by the Board in cases under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The reference before us does not relate to a case under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Moreover, as we shall see presently, even if the last clause of the Larger Bench ruling in 1969 RRD 318 is taken to be outside its terms of reference, the Board has in other cases reiterated the view that no special appeal lies under the Tenancy Act. A short answer to the last point made by SHRI Pareek is that the bar lies not in the later (Land Revenue) Act but in section 222 of the Tenancy Act itself