Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2683 (RAJ)

Ram Kumar v. Colonisation Minister

2006-09-07

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2006
Honble SHARMA, J.—The core question that emerges in the instant writ petition is — "Whether section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, ‘1956 Act’) gives power to the Cabinet Minister to set aside the judicial decision of the Board of Revenue? 2. This question arises in the circumstances set out below:— The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, was allotted land bearing khasra No. 1/3/3 measuring 8 bighas situated at village Hathnpur, Keshorai Patan Bundi vide allotment order dated November 26, 1983. On an appeal preferred against the allotment order the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota set aside the allotment. The order of Revenue Appellate Authority was however, quashed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated December 8, 1995. On a revision filed against the order of Board of Revenue under Section 83 of 1956 Act the Colonisation Minister vide order dated June 18, 1997 set aside the judgment of Board of Revenue as well as allotment order. It is against this order of Colonisation Minister that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Section 83 of 1956 Act empowers the State Government to call for the record of any non-judicial proceedings not connected with settlement. Section 83 reads as under: "83. Power of Government to call for records and revise orders.—The State Government may call for the record of any non-judicial proceeding not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, and may pass such orders as it thinks fit." 5. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of 1956 Act defines "Judicial Matters" thus- "The expression "Judicial Matter" means a proceeding in which revenue court or officer has to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties and the proceedings and orders as well as appeals, revision and references in the case specified in the First Schedule shall be deemed to be judicial matters for the purpose of this Act." 6. Since allotment of land is not included in First Schedule, it is not a judicial matter in view of sub-section (2) of Section 23 but the matter in regard to allotment of land decided by the Board of Revenue cannot be revised by the State Government or its Minister under Section 83 of 1956 Act. Since allotment of land is not included in First Schedule, it is not a judicial matter in view of sub-section (2) of Section 23 but the matter in regard to allotment of land decided by the Board of Revenue cannot be revised by the State Government or its Minister under Section 83 of 1956 Act. The Revenue Board has been created under the Act and when it discharges its functions as court, in my opinion, it becomes the judicial branch of State like regular civil courts. It is as much expected of it to have judicial independence in dealing with the matters before it as is expected of the other civil Court. The orders of Board of Revenue can only be interfered by the High Court and none other. The Cabinet Minister of the State has no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on judicial side. Thus, in the instant case the Colonisation Minister had no jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment rendered by the Board of Revenue. 7. For these reasons I allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated June 18, 1997 of the Colonisation Minister. No costs.