STATE Vs. RAWAT HIMMAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal against the order of Shri Gajendra Singh, Member, Board of Revenue dated 30-9-64 in Revision No. 4/chittorgarh/1963 whereby he accepted the revision of the respondent and directed the release of the land in question and further ordered that the income collected by the Forest Department during the period of unlawful possession by them be refunded after deducting the collection charges, to the respondent.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that this special appeal is not maintainable as the matter arises out of proceedings under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and by virtue of the provisions of S. 18 (4) of the said Act, the order of the revisional court is final and cannot be questioned in a special appeal. He has argued that the provisions of sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, under which there is a provision for special appeal, are not applicable to the present case. THE Forest Act is a special enactment while the Land Revenue Act is a general law regulating the procedure of Revenue Courts and Chapter II deals with the constitution of the Board of Revenue and the manner of the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Board. He has argued that originally the power of revision under the Forest Act vested in the State Government under S. 22 of the Forest Act and that it was by the insertion of sub-sec. (2) in sec. 22 of the above Act, that the State Government was empowered to delegate its power under the said section to the Board of Revenue or to any other authority to be named in the notification. It is urged that the State Govt. has delegated its power to the Revenue Board to hear these revisions vide; notification No. F. 7 (141) Rev. A/59, dated 24-2-62, and therefore, the member, Board of Revenue was persona designata while exercising the powers of revision under the Forest Act and. therefore, his order could not be challenged in a special appeal. He has further contended that the authority, hearing the revision application, had to hear the case in a quasi judicial manner and was, therefore, quasi judicial tribunal. He has tried to distinguish the decision reported in M/s Bawa Glass & Crockeries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (RRD 1965 p. 82) wherein it was held in a Sales Tax case, that the Sales Tax Act does not prohibit the special appeal under sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and a special appeal against an order passed by a member sitting singly in revision application, under the Sales Tax Act, was competent before a Division Bench.

(3.) HE next referred to M. V. Rajwada I. A. S. Distt. Magistrate vs. Dr. S. M. Hassan (AIR 1954 Nagpur page 71) in which it was held that the Commissioner under Commissions of Inquiry Act is a Civil Court for a limited purpose. From this the learned counsel sought to infer that the powers of a court as envisaged in the Forest Act are not akin to the powers of a court under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The test according to his contention, is that the member, Board of Revenue, hearing a rivision application was to be guided by the procedure as provided in the Forest Act and in doing so, he ramains a persona designata and a qasi-judicial tribunal for the purpose of the Forest Act. As stated above, these rulings can not be held to be relevant to the present issue unless it is found that the laws which they seek to interpret are in pari materia with the law relating to the present inquiry. This the learned counsel has not been able to establish. We therefore do not see how these authorities can help him.