TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent is the person in whose favour entries were made in the record of rights in the settlement of 1956 and in whose favour the revenue authorities granted patta. The Commissioner, to whom the revisional powers of the Revenue Board under section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1958') were delegated, initially passed orders in favour of the Forest Department on 28.7.1981 setting aside the entries in the name of the 3rd respondent's father in the record of rights. He treated the land as Reserved Forest. But his successor-commissioner passed the latter order dated 19.6.85 setting aside the order dated 28.7.81 of his predecessor, while purporting to exercise powers of review of the Board of Revenue conferred by a general Statute, namely, the Orissa Board of Revenue Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the 1951 Act). Under the latter order dated 19.6.1985 the Commissioner restored the name of the 3rd respondent's father Mayadhar Singh and refused to treat the land as Reserve Forest. The latter order dated 19.6.1985 of the Commissioner passed in review was challenged in two writ petition, one in a public interest case filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s settlement due to tiger menace. It was also identified as being located West of village Dengchuan. That it was so abandoned was accepted by the Dewan in 26.8.1932 who agreed that the village was 'lying waste' (Annexure-B). After 1932 the then Ruler Sri P.K.Deo prepared working plans to include earlier Dengarlos in the Reserved Forest by demarcation and survey. In 1934-35, one such working plan was prepared by Dr. H.F. Mooney and he recommended that the land in this village Binikapadar consisting of Sal and bamboo be treated as Reserved Forest. This recommendation was accepted by the Ruler. This village was accordingly included in the total area of 5760 acres of the Nehala Reserved Forest. The survey of India Maps of the Government of India of 1936-37 for Kalahandi State (Maps 65M/2)(Annexure-C) do not show Binikapadar village at all. By superimposing the Estate plans and these plans, it is clear that this area was treated as waste and is lying to the West of Dengchuan village. This area included in the reserve Forest in these plans is none other than Binikapadar village and thus absorbed into the Reserved Forest. Dr. Mooney's report was accepted by the Dewan on 5.12.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of reports prior to 1954, was to deem this land in Binikapadar also as part of the Reserve forest near the village, even if it was not a part of the Reserve forest earlier. The entries of the village in the records as 'waste land' and the description as such in the working plans and administrative reports prior to merger, were sufficient for purposes of section 20A. There was no order of dereservation after 1954. There has been no cultivation of lands ever since 1922. The above pleas are raised on merits. Learned counsel contends that the entries of 1956 in the record of rights were rightly revised by the Commissioner on 28.7.1981 in exercise of suo motu powers under section 15 of the Settlement Act, 1958 delegated to him. No Plea of unreasonable delay in the exercise of suo motu revisional powers was raised before the commissioner. The latter order of the successor-Commissioner dated 19.6.1985 in favour of restoring the entries of 1956 is without jurisdiction for yet another reason, namely that the Commissioner did not have any statutory powers of review. His findings on merits on the question of possession and incidentally on the question of title of Mayadhar Singh an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents, passed orders on 19.12.94 vacating the interim injunction orders passed earlier in favour of the State. No doubt, the High Court had granted stay in the public interest case. In reply, the appellants' counsel Sri P.N. Misra contended that the orders of the High Court granting transit permits and the order of the Civil Court vacating the injunction were based on the latter orders dated 8.11.1993. These orders have not reached any finality as the review order of the Commissioner and the High Court judgment dated 8.11.1993 are in question before us now, and therefore the latter orders of the High Court and Civil Court depend upon the result of these appeals. In any event, all the orders which treated the land as part of revenue village were without jurisdiction as there was no dereservation order after 1954. In view of the above pleas on facts and law, the following points arise for consideration: (1) Whether the commissioner, to whom powers of revision of the Board under sections 6D, 15, 25 and 32 of the Settlement Act, 1958 were delegated, could exercise the powers of review conferred on the Board by section 7 of the 1951 Act? (2) Whether the orders passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard, exercise revisional powers of the Board of Revenue falling under section 15. So far as the powers of review are concerned, it is admitted that in the Settlement Act, 1958, there is no provision vesting power of review on the Board of Revenue in respect of orders passed by it under section 6D, 15, 25, 32 of that Act. It is true in the Rules, namely Rule 43, there is provision for review of orders passed by 'officers' on ground of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and Rules and the hierarchy of officers, it must be held that the word 'officer' in Rule 43 cannot include the Board. In fact section 32 confers powers of revision on the Board against order of any 'officer'. Thus, 'officers' referred to in Rule 43 are those subordinate to the Board of Revenue. Again, it is also true Rule 3 which deals with 'conduct of proceedings under the Act', states that proceedings conducted by every 'officer', shall be summary and shall be governed, so far as may be practicable, by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. But even this Rule refers only to 'officers' and not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, - namely, the Bihar and Orissa Board of Revenue Act, 1913, the Madras Board of Revenue Act, 1894, the Madras Board of Revenue Regulation, 1803 and the Orissa Revenue Commissioners' (Regulation of functions) Act, 1948. Learned senior counsel for the respondents Sri T.L.Viswanatha Iyer has taken us through the above four statutes and pointed out that these Acts related only to the constitution of the Boards of Revenue or creation of posts of commissioners, Northern Division and Commissioner of Excise or Food commissioner and that they do not deal with any rights relating to land. Thus in 1951 a new Revenue Board has been created for Orissa. Section 3 of the 1951 Act deals with 'construction of references to former Boards', Section 4 refers to the duties of the Board, Section 8 deals with the administrative functions of the Board and section 10 with the 'jurisdiction of the Board'. Section 10 states that the Board of Revenue for Orissa, as constituted under section 2 shall have, in respect of the territories for the time being included in the State of Orissa, all such original, appellate and other jurisdictions as under the law in force immediately before the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by resort to section 7 of the 1951 Act. Learned senior counsel for the respondent, Sri T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer argued that the same conclusion can be reached by the application of another well-known principle, namely, that if a Court is constituted by law and matters go before it under a special law, then that Court can also exercise various other general powers attached to that Court by other statutes. In National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., Chidambaram vs. James Chadwick Bros. Ltd. [AIR 1953 SC 357] it was held by this Court that once a matter under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, comes before the High Court, the powers available to the High Court under Letters Patent can also be exercised by the High Court to correct errors in orders passed by learned single Judges of that Court. The same principle, it is contended, will apply to quasi- judicial tribunals also. Once the revision goes to the Board under section 15 of the 1958 Act, the Board can, it is contended, exercise its review powers under the 1951 Act. This submission, in our view, is correct and is required to be accepted as an additional ground to support the review powers of the Board. Thus, the Board would be certainly ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Against the said order of approval passed by the delegate, the State of U.P. filed a revision under section 27 of the Act before the custodian General. The Custodian General held that he could not pass any order as the impugned order was one passed by his delegate. The High Court disagreed with that view and remanded the case to the Custodian General. This Court allowed the appeals and held the Custodian General was right in holding that the revision to him under section 27 was incompetent. It was held that if a revision were to be entertained, it would tantamount to exercising a power of review which did not flow from section 27. In that case, this Court followed Roop Chand vs. State of Punjab (supra). The basis of the above cases is that the order of the delegate is to be treated, for all intents and purposes, as an order of the principal itself here, the Board of Revenue and hence the Board cannot revise an order passed by the delegate, the Commissioner. Can the Board review an order passed by its delegate, the Commissioner? It may be argued that if the order of the delegate is tantamount to the order of the principal, then the principal can review such an order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... powers of the delegate, we shall summarise the result of the above discussion. Firstly if the Board has passed an order in revision under sections 60. 15, 25 and 32 of the Settlement Act, 1958 it can resort to section 7 of the 1951 Act to review its own order. If the Government has delegated the revisional power of the Board under the sections 6D, 15, 25 and 32 to the Commissioner by vi** of section 33 of the 1958 Act, then the delegate, the commissioner when he exercises those powers of the Board and passes orders, those powers of the Board and passes orders, those orders will have to be treated as orders of the Board of Revenue and will not be revisiable on the principle that the Board cannot revise its won orders. Those orders passed by the delegate are also no reviewable by the Board because it was not the Board that passed the orders. Can the delegate, the Commissioner, exercise the review powers of the Board under the Act of 1951. in respect of orders passed in revision under the 1958 Act? This is the crucial question. We have noticed that the Board of Revenue, if it has itself passed orders in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the 1958 Act, it can review t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it thinks fit'. We are aware that this Court has held, while explaining the words 'as it thinks fit', that those words are to be given a wide meaning. But in the context of review jurisdiction these words cannot, in our opinion, be treated as equal to an appellate or even revisional jurisdiction. Particularly when we are dealing with review of orders passed in revisional jurisdiction, it is obvious that the review power should be something less than the revisional jurisdiction. We have noticed that under Rule 43 of the Rules made under the 1958 Act, the 'officers' who are conferred powers of review can exercise them only in case of 'mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record'. In our considered opinion, the Board's review powers under the 1951 Act are also intended for correction of 'mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record'. On that basis the powers of the Board's delegate, namely the Commissioner, while exercising review powers of Board under the 1951 Act, must be held to be equally circumscribed. We disagree in part with the decision of the Orissa High Court in Ramakanta (supra) when it stated that the power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
