1969 (4) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Collector s order granting permission to convert agricultural land to non-agricultural use as building site

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879.
2. Validity of the Commissioner's order as a speaking order.
3. Authority of the Commissioner to address the question of title.
4. Merits of the Commissioner's order in relation to issues not raised before the Collector.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879:
The primary issue was whether the Commissioner had the authority under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code to revise the order of the Collector, which granted the petitioner permission to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. The High Court held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass an order that would nullify the sanad, stating that the sanad was binding on both parties until set aside in due course of law. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that the Commissioner's power must be exercised within a reasonable time, which, in this case, was deemed to be a few months. The Commissioner's action more than a year after the Collector's order was found to be too late and therefore invalid.

2. Validity of the Commissioner's Order as a Speaking Order:
The second issue was whether the Commissioner's order was a speaking order, meaning it should contain reasons for the decision. The High Court noted some merit in the argument that the order lacked reasoning but chose not to interfere solely on this ground. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Commissioner's order should indeed be quashed because it did not provide any reasons for the conclusions. The Court emphasized that in such matters, the Commissioner should indicate his reasons, however briefly, to allow the aggrieved party to seek further recourse if desired.

3. Authority of the Commissioner to Address the Question of Title:
The third issue revolved around whether the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to address the question of title, which was not in controversy before the Collector. The High Court found that the issue of title was raised for the first time before the Commissioner and should not have been entertained. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that when the title of an occupant is disputed seriously, the appropriate course for the Collector or Commissioner is to refer the parties to a competent court rather than deciding the question of title themselves.

4. Merits of the Commissioner's Order in Relation to Issues Not Raised Before the Collector:
The fourth issue questioned the merits of the Commissioner's order, arguing that it allowed issues to be agitated before him that were not raised before the Collector. The High Court did not delve into the merits, having already concluded that the Commissioner lacked the authority under Section 211. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the Commissioner should not have entertained arguments that were not presented before the Collector and involved considerations foreign to those initially addressed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to quash the Commissioner's order. The Court underscored that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the Collector's order after a substantial delay and without providing reasons. Furthermore, the Commissioner improperly addressed the question of title and considered issues not initially raised before the Collector. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →