1967 (2) TMI 105 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of appellate and revisional powers under Sections 203 and 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain appeals against the Collector's decisions in partition proceedings.
3. Applicability of Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code to revenue officers.
4. Interpretation of "revenue officer" under Section 3(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
5. Implications of Mysore High Court's judgment in Ramchandra Shamrao v. Pralhad Krishnaji.
6. Discretionary powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of Appellate and Revisional Powers under Sections 203 and 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code:

The core issue was whether the decisions of the Collector in partitioning agricultural lands under a Civil Court decree are appealable under Section 203 and revisable under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Section 203 allows appeals from decisions or orders passed by a revenue officer under any law in force, while Section 211 provides for revision by the State Government or a senior revenue officer. It was determined that the Collector's decisions in such matters are indeed subject to appeal and revision under these sections, as there is no express provision in the Bombay Land Revenue Code or any other law to the contrary.

2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to Entertain Appeals Against the Collector's Decisions in Partition Proceedings:

The Commissioner initially refused to entertain the appeals, citing a government clarification that he had no jurisdiction over such matters. However, the court held that the Commissioner erred in this view. The appellate jurisdiction of the Commissioner over the Collector's decisions in partition proceedings was affirmed, as the Collector is a revenue officer and the Commissioner is his immediate superior, with no law expressly barring such appeals.

3. Applicability of Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code to Revenue Officers:

Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code mandates that the partition of revenue-paying lands be carried out by the Collector. The court clarified that while the partition is executed under the Civil Procedure Code, the decisions made by the Collector in this regard are appealable under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The court rejected the Mysore High Court's view that such partitions do not involve decisions or orders, emphasizing that the Collector's actions in partitioning lands do constitute decisions and orders.

4. Interpretation of "Revenue Officer" under Section 3(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code:

The term "revenue officer" was interpreted to mean an officer appointed under the Land Revenue Code and engaged in revenue administration. The court rejected the argument that the Collector ceases to be a revenue officer when performing tasks not directly related to revenue administration. It was held that the Collector remains a revenue officer even when executing partitions under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, thus making his decisions appealable under Section 203.

5. Implications of Mysore High Court's Judgment in Ramchandra Shamrao v. Pralhad Krishnaji:

The Mysore High Court had held that partitions by the Collector under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code are not appealable under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. This judgment was not accepted by the Bombay High Court, which found that the Collector's decisions in such partitions do involve rendering decisions and making orders, thereby falling within the scope of Section 203. The court also dismissed concerns about potential jurisdictional conflicts between civil courts and revenue authorities.

6. Discretionary Powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:

The court exercised its discretionary powers under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside the Commissioner's order in one petition, directing the Commissioner to hear the appeal on merits. However, in another petition, the court declined to interfere, noting that the petitioners were not genuinely aggrieved by the partition and were using the appeal to delay the transfer of possession.

Conclusion:

The Bombay High Court concluded that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the Collector's decisions in partition proceedings under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The court emphasized that the Collector remains a revenue officer when executing partitions under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, and his decisions in such matters are subject to appeal and revision. The judgment clarified the scope of appellate and revisional powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and rejected the contrary view of the Mysore High Court. The court also highlighted the discretionary nature of its powers under Articles 226 and 227, choosing to intervene only when necessary to serve the interests of justice.