SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA Vs. HUSENABU DAUDBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question urged on behalf of the appellant in these appeals is whether the suits are barred under Section 11 of. the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act X of 1876. The learned District Judge held that Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act did not apply because Section 11 contemplates an act, i.e., a positive act of dispossession and would not cover an order or decision by the city survey officer. We think the learned District Judge erred in holding that the section did not apply to an order or decision by the city survey officer. The word "act" is wide enough to cover a judicial or a quasi-judicial act, viz., the passing of an order or decision by a revenue officer. Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act contemplates the presentation of all such appeals allowed by law before bringing the suit. All such appeals would refer to appeals against the act or omission. Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, Bombay Act V of 1879, prescribes an appeal against the decision or order passed by a revenue officer. Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act would be rendered nugatory if the contention that the act does not include an order or decision were accepted. In Natha bin Naroji V/s. The Secretary of State for India (1896) P.J. 341 it was held that passing an order is clearly an act and so comes within the provision of Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. The section is not a complex statute of limitation for protection of Government, but the object, as stated in Ranchod V/s. Secretary of State for India (1897) I.L.R. 22 Bom. 583, 587, is to protect Government from being exposed to law suits arising out of the orders of its subordinate officers before its superior officers have been afforded the opportunity of considering, and, it may be, of disallowing the executive orders of its subordinate officials.

(2.) In Dayal V/s. Secretary of State , where a suit was filed for reversal of order of the Collector directing removal of an encroachment and for an injunction, it was held that the omission to file an appeal from the Collector's order to the Revenue Commissioner or Government barred the suit under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. In Sakharam V/s. The Secretary of State (1904) I.L.R. 28 Bom. 332, s.c. 6 Bom. L.R. 125 it was held that Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act did not apply in the circumstances of that case, because the act or omission which was the cause of action was not an order or decision in respect of which there was a right of appeal under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The result would have been different if the act was an order or decision against which there was a right of appeal. As a matter of fact, appeals had been presented though beyond the period of sixty days, and it would appear from page 385 that the District Judge felt that he would not be justified in relying on the bar under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act on the authority of Ranchod's case. The act complained of in that case appears to be an act of Government in giving the river bed for cultivation and was not an order or decision of a subordinate officer against which an appeal lay.

(3.) In Nathuram V/s. Secretary of State (1931) 24 Bom. L.R. 402 the decision is based on the ground that there was no order of a revenue officer, the plaintiffs were allowed to continue to hold the land rent-free, no opportunity was given to the plaintiffs to put forward their case, and no order or decision was passed but only notice of demand to pay assessment was given all of a sudden.