http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MST. SADIQUA BEGUM & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE BOARD OF REVENUE, MADHYA PRADESH &; ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/02/1985

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  474            1985 SCR  (2) 800  1985 SCC  (2)  11        1985 SCALE  (1)326

ACT:      Madhya  Pradesh   Abolition   of   Proprietary   Rights (Estates, Mahals,  Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 and M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959-Both the statutes in pari materia-Revenue Officers  exercising   powers  under  both  Acts  cognately- Provisional power can be exercised by Revenue Officers under both Acts.

HEADNOTE:      The  Collector   validated  certain  transfers  on  the applications of appellants U/5. 6 of the M. P. Abolition Act 1950 but a revision was taken by the Commissioner u/s. 50 of the M.  P. Land  Revenue Code  1959 (for  short,  the  Code) against  the   order  Or   the  Collector.  The  appellants’ contention  before   the  Commissioner   that  he   had   no jurisdiction or  power to  revise the order of the Collector was rejected.  The Board  of Revenue in the revision and the High Court  in a  writ  petition  filed  by  the  appellants confirmed the view of the Commissioner. Hence this appeal.       The  appellants contended  (i) that  the order  of the Collector was  not revisable  under  the  Code  because  the Abolition Act  was a  Code or  a law  complete in itself and conferred no  powers  of  revision  or  appeal  outside  the Abolition  Act   and  therefore   the  Commissioner  had  no jurisdiction to entertain suo moto revision; (ii) that since there was  a right  of appeal under sec. 84 of the Abolition Act, no  revisional  power  could  be  exercised  either  by Commissioner or  by the Board of Revenue under the Code; and (iii) that even assuming that the Abolition Act and the Code were statutes  in pari  materia, they  possess two clear cut and separate  powers, that  is to  say, no suo moto revision could lie  to the  Revenue Officers  unless  a  revision  or appeal was Sled before the Commissioner by the party.      Dismissing the appeal, to this Court ^       HELD:  (1) A  perusal of  the schemes of the Abolition Act and the Code clearly indicates that the two Acts were in pari materia and the revenue officers were exercising powers under  both  the  Acts  cognately.  There  was  no  clearcut distinction between  a  Revenue  Officer  acting  under  the Abolition Act  and acting  under the  Code. This  being  the position, it is manifest that the revisional powers could be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

exercised by  the Revenue  Officers under  s. 50 of the Code and even under the Abolition Act as well. [802D-E] 801 (2) Under  the provisions  of, the Abolition Act as also the Code, both  the Commissioner and the Board were appellate as also revisional  authorities. Thus,  when  two  powers  were conferred on  the said  officers in  a sort  of  a  combined capacity,  it   cannot  be  said  that  merely  because  the formality  of   filing  a   regular  appeal   before     the Commissioner or  the Board  was  not  adopted,  a  suo  moto revision would not lie [802H; 813A-B]       In  the instant  case, both  the Commissioner and the- Board of  Revenue had  appellate as  also revisional  powers Both these powers being conferred on the same authority, the difference between  the exercise of a revision or appeal was a  mere idle formality and was of no consequence [803C-D]

JUDGMENT:       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 245 (N) of 1971.       Appeal  by Certificate  from the  Judgement and  Order dated the 9th February 1979 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 361 of 1967.        Mukul   Rohtagi  and   A.  G.   Ratnaparkhi  for  the Appellants.       Ravinder Bana and A. K Sanghi for the Respondents       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by       FAZAL  ALI, J.  This appeal by certificate is directed against  a   judgment  of  the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants against certain orders  of the Revenue Officers under the provisions of  the  Madhya  Pradesh  Abolition  of  Proprietary  Rights (Estates, Mahals,  Alienated Lands)  Act, 1950  (for  short, ’Abolition Act’)  which came into force sometime in the year 1951. By  virtue of  s.6 of  the Abolition Act all transfers made by  proprietors at  any time after 16th March 1950 were deemed to  be void unless declared valid by the Collector on a proper  application made  to him. The transferees, in view of the  aforesaid provisions,  filed applications before the Collector in  1964 who  validated the transfers by his order dated 6th  June 1964.  Against the  order of the Collector a revision was  taken by  the Commissioner  in exercise of his powers under  s. 50  of the  M. P.  Land Revenue  Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred  to as  the ’Code’).  The  transferees objected to  the jurisdiction  of the  Commissioner  on  the ground that  he had  no power  to revise  the order  of  the Collector. This  contention was rejected by the Commissioner and hence,  a revision  was taken  to the  Board of  Revenue which confirmed the view of the Commissioner. It was against this order that the appellants filed a writ petition 802 before  the   High  Court   assailing  the   orders  of  the Commissioner as also the Board of Revenue.       The  learned counsel for the appellants contended that any order  passed under  s.6 of  the Abolition  Act was  not revisable under  the Code  because the  Abolition Act  was a Code or a law complete  in itself and conferred no powers of revision or  appeal outside the Abolition Act. Hence, it was contended, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain suo moto  revision. In  the second place, it was argued that under s.  84 of  the Abolition  Act  appeals  were  provided against all  orders passed  by Revenue  Officers  and  since there was  a right  of appeal  provided under  the  Act,  no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

revisional  power   could  be   exercised  either   by   the commissioner or  by the  Board of  Revenue under the Code It was also  faintly urged  before  the  High  Court  that  the Revenue Officers  when exercising powers under the Abolition Act were  not exercising  the powers as Revenue Officers but as a  persona designata  under the  Abolition Act  In  other words,   the contention  raised before the High Court, which was repeated  before us, was that the Revenue Officers had a dual capacity-(1) under the Abolition Act, and (2) under the Code. The  High Court, however, rejected the contention and, in our opinion, rightly.       A  perusal of the schemes of the Abolition Act and the Code   clearly indicates  that the  two Acts  were  in  pari materia and  the revenue  officers  were  exercising  powers under  both  the  Acts  cognately.  There  was  no  clearcut distinction between  a  Revenue  Officer  acting  under  the Abolition Act  and acting  under the  Code. This  being  the position, it is manifest that the revisional powers could be exercised by the Revenue Officers under 9 50 of the Code and even   under the Abolition Act as well. We find ourselves in complete agreement  with the view taken by the High Court on this point  and which  was  also  not  seriously  challenged before us.       The  sheet-anchor of  the contention  of  the  learned counsel for  the appellants before us was that even assuming that the  two statutes  (Abolition Act  and the  Code)  were statutes in  pari maieria,  they   possess two  clearcut and separate powers,  that is to say, no suo moto revision could lie to  the Revenue officers unless a revision or appeal was filed before the Commissioner by the party.       It  is not disputed in this case that the Commissioner Board of  Revenue passed  the order  in  exercise  of  their revisional powers. It  would, however, appear that under the provisions of the Abolition 803 Act as  also the  Code, both  the Commissioner and the Board were appellate  as also  revisional authorities.  Thus, when two powers  were conferred on the said officers in a sort of a combined  capacity, it  cannot be said that merely because the  formality   of  filing  a  regular  appeal  before  the Commissioner or  the Board  was  not  adopted,  a  suo  moto revision would  not lie.  The  contention  could  have  some substance if  there would have been any statutory embargo on the hierarchy  of the  Officers mentioned above to entertain any revision  against  an  order  passed  by  one  authority without filing an appeal before it.        In   the  instant   case,  we   find  that  both  the Commissioner and  the Board of Revenue had appellate as also revisional powers.  Both these powers being conferred on the same authority,  the difference  between the  exercise of  a revision or  appeal was  a mere idle formality and was of no consequence.       The  result is  that all the contentions raised by the appellants fail  and the  appeal is  dismissed  but  in  the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. M.L.A                                      Appeal dismissed. 804