Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1972 DIGILAW 188 (ALL)

Krishna Devi v. Board of Revenue

1972-04-20

J.S.TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA

body1972
JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The land in dispute appears to have been allotted by an auction in favour of Sarup Singh, Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner, Smt. Krishna Devi, applied before the Sub-Divisional Officer Under Rule 115-N of the ZA and LR Rules for the cancellation of the allotment. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the application and cancelled the allotment. Aggrieved, Sarup Singh filed a revision. The Additional Commissioner referred it to the Board of Revenue with the recommendation that it should be allowed. The Board of Revenue on 15th October, 1969 passed an order allowing the revision and setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. 2. Thereupon, Smt. Krishna Devi instituted a writ petition in this Court. At the hearing of the writ petition it was urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the revision was not maintainable against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed Under Rule 115-N. In support, reliance was placed upon a decision of Broome, J. in the case of Kishan Lal Jat v. State of U.P. 1966 AWR 734. The learned Single Judge felt that this decision requires reconsideration. He accordingly referred the following question to a Division Bench: Whether a revision lies to the Board of Revenue u/s 333 of the UP ZA and LR Act against the order of an Assistant Collector incharge of a sub-division (S.D.O.) passed Under Rule 115-N of the UP ZA and LR Rules, setting aside an auction of an abadi site by the Land Management Committee. We have seen the decision in Kishan Lal's case. There Broome, J. held "A revision lies to the Board of Revenue u/s 333 only against decisions of a subordinate court; and it cannot be said that the S.D.O. acting Under Rule 115-N functions as a Court." The entire decision of the point is confined to this single terse sentence. The point has not been discussed and no reasons have been given. 3. u/s 333 of the ZA and LR Act a revision lies to the Board of Revenue in any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court in which either no appeal lies to it or, if an appeal lies, it has not been preferred. 4. Section 331 provides for institution of suits in courts mentioned in col. 4 of the Second Schedule. 4. Section 331 provides for institution of suits in courts mentioned in col. 4 of the Second Schedule. Sub-section (2) provides for an appeal against orders and decrees so passed to courts mentioned in col. 5 and Sub-section (4) provides for a second appeal from the final order or decree passed in appeal Under Sub-section (2) to the authority mentioned in col. 6. That authority is the Board of Revenue. It will thus be seen that the scheme of Section 331 read with the Second Schedule is for institution of suits in designated courts of original jurisdiction, from whose decrees or orders appeals lie to higher courts. This being the hierarchy of courts envisaged by the ZA and LR Act, it can, within the meaning of Section 333, be said that the courts of original jurisdiction given in col. 4 of the Second Schedule are courts subordinate to the courts of first appeal and courts of second appeal mentioned in cols. 5 and 6; and similarly, that the court of first appeal mentioned in col. 5 is subordinate to court of second appeal mentioned in col. 6 thereof. Col. 6 of the Schedule refers to the Board of Revenue while col. 5 mentions the Commissioner. Col. 4 dealing with the courts of original jurisdiction refers to several authorities like Assistant Collector, Assistant Collector, First Class, as well as the Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division. In many entries, like entries Nos. 5, 11, 20, 20-A, 30, 31, 35, 41 and 42, the court of original jurisdiction is the Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division. 5. These provisions clearly treat the Assistant Collector in charge of a Sub-Division as the court of original jurisdiction and they treat it as a court subordinate to the court of the Commissioner as well as the court of the Board of Revenue. Section 333, when it uses the phrase "subordinate court" must be held to be having the same hierarchy of courts in mind as is provided for in Section 331 read with the Second Schedule. In other words, the subordinate court within meaning of Section 333 and with reference to the Board of Revenue are the court of the Commissioner and the courts of original jurisdiction mentioned in col. 4 of the Second Schedule. In other words, the subordinate court within meaning of Section 333 and with reference to the Board of Revenue are the court of the Commissioner and the courts of original jurisdiction mentioned in col. 4 of the Second Schedule. Thus a revision would lie to the Board of Revenue in any suit or proceeding "decided" inter alia by the Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division in which either no appeal lies to the Board or, if it does lie, it has not been preferred. 6. Section 3(27) of the ZA and LR Act provides that words and expressions like "Assistant Collector" not defined in this Act and used in the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall have the meaning assigned to them in that Act. This shows that the term "Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-Division", as used in the ZA and LR Act, will have the meaning assigned to it by the Land Revenue Act. 7. Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act authorises the State Government to appoint Assistant Collector in each district, Section 18 provides that the State Government may place any Assistant Collector of the First Class in charge of one or more sub-divisions of the district and such Assistant Collectors are called Assistant Collectors in charge of a subdivision of a district, or a Sub-Divisional Officer. They are entitled to exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed upon them by the Land Revenue Act or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 4(8) of the Land Revenue Act defines the term 'revenue court' to mean "all or any of the following authorities", that is to say, the Board and all members thereof, Commissioners, Collectors, Additional Collectors, Assistant Collectors etc. It is true that this clause gives the definition of revenue court; but it is clear that in the Land Revenue Act, the Assistant Collector has the significance and meaning of being a revenue court. Since the term "Assistant Collector" is understood in the Land Revenue Act as being a revenue court, it will have to be taken in that sense for purposes of the ZA and LR Act in view of Section 3(27) thereof. Since the term "Assistant Collector" is understood in the Land Revenue Act as being a revenue court, it will have to be taken in that sense for purposes of the ZA and LR Act in view of Section 3(27) thereof. Sections 15 and 18 of the Land Revenue Act show that the Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division is an Assistant Collector of the First Class who has been put in such charge by the State Government. Hence, the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division is the same entity known as Assistant Collector in Section 4(8) of the Land Revenue Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer would, therefore, be a revenue court within meaning of the Land Revenue Act and also within meaning of the ZA and LR Act. This corroborates the interpretation placed upon Sections 331 and 333 read with the second Schedule earlier that the Assistant Collector in charge of a subdivision is a court within meaning of these provisions. 8. The use of the words "courts" and "decided" in Section 333 shows that the Legislative intent was that a revision would lie under it against judicial adjudications of suits and proceedings. Administrative proceedings conducted by those very authorities would not be within the purview of Section 333. This is in consonance with Section 219, Land Revenue Act, which provides that in judicial cases and cases connected with settlement, a revision would lie to the Board of Revenue, while in non-judicial proceedings not connected with settlement a revision would lie to the State Government. 9. It was urged that proceedings Under Rule 115-N are non-judicial. In our opinion, the submission is misconceived. Under Rule 115-N, the Assistant Collector in charge resolves a his between two parties. In view of Sub-section (3), he makes a "decision" in the case. His decision is final. Under Sub-rule (iii), he has to hear the parties. Thereafter, he decides the case by a written order which records the reasons for the conclusions reached by him. Further, he can cancel the allotment only on grounds mentioned in Sub-rule (i). These various features leave no room for doubt that the Assistant Collector discharges judicial functions Under Rule 115-N. These proceedings cannot possibly be held to be administrative in nature. 10. The proceedings Under Rule 115-N being judicial in nature and the Asstt. Further, he can cancel the allotment only on grounds mentioned in Sub-rule (i). These various features leave no room for doubt that the Assistant Collector discharges judicial functions Under Rule 115-N. These proceedings cannot possibly be held to be administrative in nature. 10. The proceedings Under Rule 115-N being judicial in nature and the Asstt. Collector being a court subordinate to the Board of Revenue, a revision against his orders is maintainable. 11. It is true that Rule 115-N (3) provides that the decision of the Asstt. Collector shall be final. It is well-settled that such finality does not restrict the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon higher courts. In the case of Shah Chaturbhuj v. Mauji Ram 1938 AWR 437, a Full Bench of this Court interpreted the phrase "the decision of revenue court shall be final" occurring in Section 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934, as not depriving the higher courts of revisional powers u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Full Bench held that the finality mentioned in the provision only meant that there was no right of appeal vesting in the litigants against such an order. In our opinion, this Full Bench decision equally applies to Section 333. The finality mentioned by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 115-N cannot whittle down the amplitude of the revisional power conferred upon the Board of Revenue by Section 333 of the ZA and LR Act. 12. In our opinion, Kishan Lal's case was not correctly decided. We are inclined to the view that the revision was maintainable and was validly entertained by the Board of Revenue. We would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. 13. Let the papers be returned to the learned Single Judge with our opinion and answer.