1998 (8) TMI 601 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the delegate of the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue, Orissa under the Act of 1958 can exercise the general powers of review conferred on the Board under the Act of 1951.
2. Whether the order of the delegate is to be treated as the order of the Board or as an order of the delegate in his own right.
3. Whether the Board can revise or review the order of the delegate.
4. Whether the matters concerning title and possession as recorded in the Record of Rights entries of 1956-57 can be left open for decision by the Civil Court in civil suit T.S.76/91 now pending.

Summary:

Points 1 & 2:
The main issue was whether the Commissioner, to whom the revisional powers of the Board under sections 6D, 15, 25, and 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (Act of 1958) were delegated, could exercise the powers of review conferred on the Board by section 7 of the Orissa Board of Revenue Act, 1951 (Act of 1951). The Court noted that the 1951 Act is a general statute dealing with the powers of the Board of Revenue, while the 1958 Act is a special statute dealing with land and rights annexed thereto. The Court held that the Board would be entitled to exercise review powers under section 7 of the 1951 Act in respect of orders passed in its revisional jurisdiction under the 1958 Act. The delegate, the Commissioner, while exercising revisional powers of the Board under the 1958 Act, is also clothed with the review powers of the Board under section 7 of the 1951 Act.

Points 3 & 4:
The Court considered whether the Commissioner, in his review orders dated 19.6.85, exceeded his powers of review. It was determined that the review power should be limited to the correction of 'mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record.' The Court decided not to express any views on the merits of the contentions regarding title and possession, leaving these issues to be decided by the Civil Court in the pending suit T.S.76/91. The Court directed that the status quo be maintained and that the tree and forest growth in the disputed land should not be interfered with pending the disposal of the suit.

Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of with the direction that the Civil Court should decide the suit expeditiously, and the status quo regarding the disputed land should be maintained in the meantime. There was no order as to costs.