Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1959 DIGILAW 329 (ALL)

Roorey v. Board of Revenue

1959-11-09

GURTU, MOOTHAM

body1959
JUDGMENT Mootham, C.J. - This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The only question raised in the appeal is whether a single member of the Board of Revenue can, in a second appeal under the provisions of the U.P. ZA and LR Act 1950 alter or reverse the appellate judgment of the commissioner. It is, we think, a matter of regret that in this case which directly concerns the practice and procedure of the Board of Revenue, the Board, although served with notice of the appeal, did not enter an appearance and was accordingly not represented at the hearing. 3. The Appellant had filed a suit against the Respondents (other than the Board of Revenue) u/s 202(b) of the ZA and LR Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, but that court's judgment was set aside by the Addl. Commr. on appeal. The Defendants then filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The appeal was heard by Sri R.N. Dey, a Judicial Member of the Board who by an order dated 20-4-1955 stated his reasons for proposing to allow the appeal subject to the concurrence of his colleague, Sri A.N. Sapru. Sri A.N. Sapru was however of opinion that his concurrence was not necessary and that it would be beyond his province to deal with the matter; and by an order dated 29-10-1955, he declined to express any opinion on the appeal. Sri R.N. Dey thereupon, by an order dated 11-7-1955, allowed the appeal. The Appellant then filed a petition in this Court in which he challenged the validity of that order. That petition was dismissed by the order which is the subject of the present appeal. 4. The Board of Revenue is constituted under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 Sections 5, 7 and 8 of which read thus: 5. The control of all non-judicial matters connected with the land revenue in Uttar Pradesh other than matters connected with settlement is vested in the State Government and the control of all judicial matters and of all matters connected with settlement under this Act is vested in the Board. The control of all non-judicial matters connected with the land revenue in Uttar Pradesh other than matters connected with settlement is vested in the State Government and the control of all judicial matters and of all matters connected with settlement under this Act is vested in the Board. 7.(1) Subject to such rules or orders as the State Government may prescribe or issue, the Board may distribute its business and make such territorial division of its jurisdiction amongst its members as to the Board may seem fit. (2) All orders made or decrees paused by a member of the Board in accordance with such distribution or division shall be held to be the orders or decrees (as the case may be) of the Board. 8. No decree or order in a judicial proceeding coming under the consideration of the Board on appeal, on a reference u/s 218, or in revision u/s 219, shall be altered or reversed without the concurrent judgment of two members of the Board. 5. It it contended for the Appellant that u/s 8 no appeal coming before the Board in a judicial proceeding can be allowed without the concurrent judgment of two members of the Board, while for the Respondents it is urged that the word 'appeal' in this section refers only to appeals under the Land Revenue Act itself. 6. Now Section 5 places the control of "all judicial matters" in the Board and in the absence of any further provision this would mean that the judicial functions of the Board must be exercised by all the members of the Board collectively. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 however empowers the Board (subject to such rules or orders as the State Government may make) to distribute its business and make a territorial division of its jurisdiction amongst its members; Sub-section (2) of this section then provides that any order or decree made by a member of the Board in accordance with such distribution or division shall be deemed to be the order or decree of the Board. Then comes Section 8 which provides that in the case of certain classes of judicial proceedings coming before the Board the lower court's decree or order shall not be altered or reversed without the concurrent judgment of two members of the Board. This section is in substance a proviso to Section 7(2). 7. Then comes Section 8 which provides that in the case of certain classes of judicial proceedings coming before the Board the lower court's decree or order shall not be altered or reversed without the concurrent judgment of two members of the Board. This section is in substance a proviso to Section 7(2). 7. In Jai Pal Singh v. Board of Revenue 1956 AWR (HC) 518 this Court held that the business and jurisdiction of the Board referred to in Section 7 is not restricted to the powers and duties conferred and imposed on the Board under the Land Revenue Act but included powers and duties imposed on the Board under the U.P. T. Act, 1939. The question which now arises is whether the judicial business referred to in Section 7 is restricted to business coming before the ex Board under the Land Revenue and Tenancy Acts; and we see no sufficient reason for so limiting it. The Tenancy Act, 1939, has been repealed and the old tenancy law superseded by the ZA and LR Act. In our opinion the business and jurisdiction of the Board referred to in Section 7 should be so construed as to include judicial matters in respect of which powers and duties have been conferred on the Board under the latter Act. That in fact is the view which the Board has itself taken and it is not in dispute in this case that the Board has made an order distributing its business (and the territorial division of its jurisdiction) under the ZA and LR Act among its members. It follows therefore that an order passed by a member of the Board in a case coming before him under the ZA and LR Act will be the order of the Board, provided that it is not a case which comes within the ambit of Section 8. 8. Now Sections 7 and 8 must be read together and in our opinion the power of a member finally to dispose of an appeal, reference or revision under the former Section will be subject to the provisions of the latter unless it is evident that they have no application. It is clear, for example, that the restriction imposed by Section 8 will apply only to reference or revisions coming before the Board under the Land Revenue Act. It is clear, for example, that the restriction imposed by Section 8 will apply only to reference or revisions coming before the Board under the Land Revenue Act. We think however the position to be otherwise in the case of appeals. If the legislature had intended that the restriction imposed by Section 8 be limited to appeals under the Land Revenue Act it would have been a simple matter to have made that clear by adding after the word 'appeals' the words "Under Section 210 or 213;" and the fact that the legislature did not do this, although it inserted a reference to the appropriate sections of the Land Revenue Act in the case of references or revisions, is in our opinion a sufficient indication that the legislature did not intend that the section should apply, in the case of appeals, only to appeals under that Act. The legislature has in our opinion made a distinction' between appeals on the one hand and references and revisions on the other and in the case of the former it has provided that the concurrent judgment of two members of the Board is necessary before any decree or order made whether under the Land Revenue Act or any other Act be altered or reversed by the Board on appeal. 9. The result is therefore that this appeal is allowed with costs. The order of the learned Judge is set aside and a writ of certiorari will issue quashing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 11-7-1955.