DECIDING AUTHORITY: Supreme Court of India
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/2000
BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD & S.N. PHUKAN
FACTS: Suit for partition filed by the respondents in respect of Plot No. 64/1/A and other properties was decreed by the trial court in 1969 which decree was upheld by the first appellate court and also by the High Court. Since one of the properties in respect of which partition decree was passed was assessed to land revenue payable to the State Govt, the trial court referred the matter to Collector under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure for partition. The Collector partitioned the properties by his order dated 1.6.1976. The order of the Collector was challenged by the appellant before the Deputy Secretary under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. This Revision was allowed on 2.7.1977 and the Deputy Secretary remanded the matter to the Collector. The respondents in Regular challenged order of the Deputy Secretary Civil Suit No. 71 of 1978 on the ground that the Deputy Secretary had no Jurisdiction to consider the propriety of the order passed by the Collector, under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was decreed on 22.12.1981. The appeal preferred by the appellant against this decree was Dismissed by the District Judge on 20.8.1983. The second appeal thereafter Filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed by the High Court on 17.8.1984 on the ground that the appeal did not involve any substantial Question of law.
JUDGEMENT: Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Collector was a Revenue Officer and therefore he was amenable to the jurisdiction of the State Government under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879. He placed reliance upon Sections 203 and 211.
It is further contended that since it is specifically provided under Section 203 that any order passed by a Revenue Officer under this Act (or any other law for the time being force) would be appealable to that officer’s immediate superior, the order passed by the Collector could be legally challenged under the Code to the superior officer. Under Section 211, the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government could also be invoked. In order to substantiate his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Paygonda Survgon-da Patil& Ors. v.Jingonda Surgonda Patil & Ors. AIR (1986) Bombay 198.
The Bombay High Court dissented with the view taken by the Mysore High Court in Ramachandra Shamarao Kulkarni v. Prahlad Krishnaji Kulkarni & Ors. AIR (1964) Mysore 31, in which the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code were considered. The view expressed by the Bombay High Court is in consonance with the view of the Madras High Court in Sree Rajah Mantripragad Venkataraghava Rao Bahadur, Zamindar Gam & Ors. v. Sri Rajesh Mantripragad Venkata Hanumantha Rao Bahadur, Zamin-dar Gam (deceased).& Ors,, AIR (1945) Madras 336.
It is thus apparent that there was a important and substantial question of law, which was involved in this case, which required a decision from the High Court. Since the second appeal filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of Jaw was involved.
HELD: Appeal Allowed
By Tejasv Anand,IVth Year, AMITY LAW SCHOOL,DELHI.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS