TMI Blog1907 (5) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner reviewed his order cancelling the sale, set it aside and affirmed the sale. The defendants 1st party have now been put in possession of the mehal by the Collector of Monghyr. Hence the suit for the reliefs mentioned above. 3. The Subordinate Judge has held that the Commissioner could not review and set aside his order of the 23rd March, and therefore that the order of that date setting aside the sale holds good. The plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to possession. He further holds in the alternative that there is no proof of the service of the notice of sale, that the property was sold for an inadequate price, but that there is no direct evidence to show that the inadequacy of price is the result of the non service of the notice of sale. He has accordingly given the plaintiffs a decree. 4. The defendants appeal. On their behalf it has been urged: (i) That the Commissioner's order of the 21st June 1900, setting aside his previous order annulling the sale was within his powers; (ii) That the present suit must accordingly fail, unless the plaintiffs can establish the ground specified in Section 33 of Act XI of 1859; (iii) That the plaintiffs never pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.L.R. 20 Born. 281, Matangini Debi v. Girish Chunder Chongdar (1903) I.L.R. 30 Calc. 619 and Hira Lal Mukerji v. Premamoyee Debi (1905) 2 C.L.J. 306. On the authority of these eases the learned pleader for the appellant argues (i) that a Commissioner or any Revenue Authority has always power to review or set aside an erroneous order of his, and that it is his duty to do so: and (ii) that the word final in Section 25 of Act XI of 1859, as amended by Section 2, Act VII B.C. of 1868 on which it has been argued that the power to review an order under the Act is expressly barred, means no more than not open to appeal, and does not prohibit either review or revision. We are unable to agree to either of these contentions. 9. A Commissioner or Revenue Authority who has once set aside a sale under Act XI of 1859, as was done in this case, and which was actually carried into effect, has no power, such as may or may not be inherent, or vested by statutory enactment, in a Civil Court to revoke or modify an order passed by him under the Act, and the word final, whatever its meaning may be in other Acts, (for all the cases relied on by the learned pleader for the appellant relate to Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 24 of the Act of 1880 has conferred on the Board of Revenue the power of general supervision and control over proceedings of Commissioners under that Act, so that any person who may be dissatisfied with an order passed by a Commissioner on appeal has thus his remedy by bringing it under consideration of the Board of Revenue. By not providing for a review of such an order, either expressly or by extending to such orders the Code of Civil Procedure relating to reviews of judgment, and by giving to a superior authority, the Board of Revenue, the power to supervise and control any order passed by a Commissioner, the Legislature has, in my opinion, declared an intention that such an order shall not be open to review, but is open to revision by the Board of Revenue with the same result. With these observations I entirely concur, and have nothing to add to them. 12. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss in detail the judgments cited by the learned pleader for the appellant on his other pleas, tending to show that the Commissioner's order of the 21st June 1900 was good and within his powers. 13. This practically settles the appeal and it is useless to consider whether the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale on making the necessary deposit under Section 19 of that Act. The deposit was made, and the sale was set aside by the Certificate Officer on the 14th February, 1896. The auction purchaser then appeared and objected to the cancellation of the sale on the ground that the plaintiff No. 3 was not a party entitled under Section 19 of the Act to make the deposit and apply for the cancellation of the sale. The Certificate Officer held that he had the power to review his order under which the sale was set aside and confirmed the said sale on the 20th March, 1896. On appeal, the Collector restored the first order of the Certificate Officer cancelling the sale. The auction purchaser then moved the Commissioner to revise the order of the Collector, and the Commissioner held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and, restoring the order of the Certificate Officer passed in review, confirmed the sale. It was held by the learned Judges that the Commissioner had power of revision under Section 33 of the Act and that he having under that Section affirmed the sale, it was unnecessary to consider the further question whether it was open to a Certificate Officer himself to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
