9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed into merits of the matter in the sense as to whether the parameters and prerequisites for exercise of revisional powers under Section 108 were existing or not, then, he could not have observed that the writ petition is not maintainable. The order is not clear. Sub-section 2 of Section 108 of the Act, 2017 says that - "The Revisional Authority shall not exercise any power under sub-section (1), if--(a) the order has been subject to an appeal under section 107 or section 112 or section 117 or section 118." The words -"the order has been subject to an appeal under Section 107" means that against such an order an appeal has been filed. Noway these words can be understood as implying that first of all the applicant, who h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period specified under sub-section (2) of section 107 has not yet expired or more than three years have expired after the passing of the decision or order sought to be revised; or (c) the order has already been taken for revision under this section at an earlier stage; or (d) the order has been passed in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1). 4. The submission is that though remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner against an order passed under Section 73 of the Act, 2017 but a revision was also maintainable under Section 108 and the petitioner chose to file a revision. If the order impugned is taken as an order on merits, then, it is a cryptic order which has been passed without due and proper application of mind to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 46;ूर्ण, राजस्व हितों के प्रतिकूल अथवा अवैध न होने के कारण रिवीजन हेतु दाखिल प्रार्थना-पत्र ग्राह्य नहीं है। यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ीं है।" 7. If the revision was not maintainable on the ground that there was a provision of appeal, then, the Revisional Authority should not have discussed any other aspect of the matter, however, if he entered into merits of the matter in the sense as to whether the parameters and prerequisites for exercise of revisional powers under Section 108 were existing or not, then, he could not have observed that the writ petition is not maintainable. The order is not clear. 8. Be that as it may, we have perused Section 108 of the Act, 2017 which reads as under:- "108. Powers of Revisional Authority.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of section 121 and any rules made thereunder, the Revisional Authority ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er this section at an earlier stage; or (d) the order has been passed in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1): Provided that the Revisional Authority may pass an order under sub-section (1) on any point which has not been raised and decided in an appeal referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2), before the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order in such appeal or before the expiry of a period of three years referred to in clause (b) of that sub-section, whichever is later. (3) Every order passed in revision under sub-section (1) shall, subject to the provisions of section 113 or section 117 or section 118, be final and binding on the parties. (4) If the said decision or order involves an issue on which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been subject to an appeal under Section 107" means that against such an order an appeal has been filed. Noway these words can be understood as implying that first of all the applicant, who has filed the revision under Section 108, should file an appeal and only thereafter, a revision will lie against such an order passed in appeal. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order in either eventuality is not maintainable. If it is taken as a decision on merits it does not consider the facts of the case and the pleas raised in the revision. If it is taken as an order dismissing the revision as not maintainable, then, it is against the provisions of Section 108, as discussed hereinabove. The impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
