Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5102 OF 2006

Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani Appellant(s)

versus

The State of Maharashtra and others Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

This  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed  against  order

dated 13.7.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay

High Court. Dismissing Letter Patents Appeal preferred by the

appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge who

dismissed his writ petition and confirmed the orders passed by

the State Minister for Revenue in the proceeding R.T.S.3402/

Pra.kra.309/L-6 dated 18th October, 2002.

1

Page 2

2. It is the appellant’s case that his father Shri Nawoosingh

Panjumal Panjwani was a displaced person who migrated from

Pakistan  to  India  during  the  period  of  partition  and  the

appellant’s  family while  in Pakistan was having agricultural

land  over  there  admeasuring  4  acres  10  gunthas.   After

migration, the family took shelter at Refugee Camp of Pimpri,

Pune  in  Maharashtra.  In  view  of  enactment  of  Displaced

Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by the

Union  of  India,  the  immovable  properties  left  behind  by

Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan were acquired and the

same was distributed to displaced persons as a “compensation

pool”.  Accordingly, father of the appellant was allotted a land

admeasuring  2  acres  5  gunthas  bearing  Revenue  Survey

Nos.351  and  118/2  situated  at  Village  Lonavala,  Taluka

Maval,  District Pune.  It has been pleaded by the appellant

that Survey No.118/1 and 118/2 are one and the same thing.  

3. The facts in brief, as narrated in the impugned order, are

that Survey Nos.118, 328 and 351 of Lonavala were originally

2

Page 3

owned by one Haji Habib Tar Mohammed Janu. The said Haji

Habib Tar Mohammed Janu migrated to Pakistan and while

going to Pakistan,  he sold his property to one Smt. Hajrabi

Haji  Yusuf  on  4.6.1949.  However,  this  transaction  was

cancelled by the Collector and Custodian of Evacuee Property

on 17.4.1949 as per Section 8(i) of the Evacuee Properties Act

and these lands were accordingly entered as Evacuee Property

by the Tahsildar, Maval on 26.10.1949.  It appears that these

survey numbers were also given C.T.S.No. 129, 130-A, 130-B

and 133. It  appears that in CTS No.129, 130-A, 130-B and

133, apart from vacant land there is a bungalow No.52- Habib

Villa.  It  appears that the Regional  Settlement Commissioner

placed  this  property  for  auction  through  Government

Auctioner and one Gulabbai Desaipurchased the said property

in  auction  for  a  consideration of  Rs.16,750/-  on 17.5.1956

and, accordingly, sale certificate was issued by the Regional

Settlement  Commissioner,  Bombay  on  behalf  of  the

Government.  In  the  said  sale  certificate  the  C.T.S.  No 129,

3

Page 4

130-A,  130-B and 133 of  Village  Lonavala  were  mentioned.

The area of this CTS Nos. were as under:

129 - 55.16 sq.mts. 130A - 1651.1 sq.mts. 130B - 2934.02 sq.mts 133 - 3237.00 sq.mts ______________ Total 7897.21 sq.mts. ------------------

4. On  the  basis  of  the  said  sale  certificate  the  mutation

Entry No.1836 was effected in the village record in favour of

Gulabai Desai, and thereby her name was entered in  Survey

Nos.118/1B and 328 of village Lonavala to the extent of 29.30

Ares and 70 Ares respectively.  Thereafter, Gulabai sold CTS

No.133 admeasuring 33 Gunthas on 24.4.1977 to Respondent

No.3 Genu Kadu.  The said Gulabai also gifted her remaining

area from this Survey numbers to her grandson Anil Gajanan

Desai on 15.1.1979, who in turn has sold his properties to

Respondent no.2 - Prem Hasmatraj Lalwani in the year 1980.  

4

Page 5

5. The Survey Nos.118/2 and 351, being Evacuee Properties,

were allotted to the Appellant in the year 1956. Later on, it

was found that the Appellant is in possession of more area

and, therefore, the said order was modified on 6.5.1982 and

excess  area  was  granted  to  the  Appellant  on  payment  of

Rs.31,360/-,  which  Appellant  had  paid  on  17.5.1982  in

Government Treasury and thereby the Deputy Collector and

Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Pune granted the excess

land  to  the  Appellant,  and  thereafter  the  dispute  started

between the parties.    

6. In the impugned order, Division Bench made it clear that

since the dispute between the parties was in respect of  the

area,  as  to  what  has  been  purchased  in  auction  sale  by

Gulabai Desai and what is the area allotted to the Appellant by

the orders of the Deputy Collector and Deputy Custodian of

Evacuee Properties, the Appellant requested the Bench not to

enter into the merits on this question in this LPA since the

parties  may prosecute  their  remedies  in  the  Civil  Court  for

5

Page 6

such  adjudication,  and  therefore,  that  aspect  was  not

considered by the  High Court.  However,  in  the  facts  of  the

conflicting claims, the Appellant made grievance to the Deputy

Collector and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties in

respect  of  the  Mutation  made  in  favour  of  the  Respondent

Gulabai and other Respondents and, therefore, by order dated

18.9.1984  the  Deputy  Collector  and  Deputy  Custodian  of

Evacuee Properties, Pune, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Haveli  Sub  Division  to  take  up  the  case  in  revision  under

Section  257  of  Maharashtra  Land  Revenue  Code  and  pass

necessary  orders.  In  view  of  these  directions,  the

Sub-Divisional  Officer,  Haveli,  Sub  Division,  Pune,  initiated

proceeding  RTS  Revision  14  of  1984  and  by  order  dated

30.7.1985  cancelled  the  mutation  Entry  No.1836  which

comprises  land  admeasuring  7897  sq.  yards  and  directed

necessary  corrections in  the  record as per  the  observations

made in the order.   

6

Page 7

7. It appears that the said order was taken in appeal by the

respondent  and  the  matter  was  remanded  to  the  Sub

Divisional  Officer.  After  remand,  the  Sub Divisional  Officer,

conducted inquiry and again passed an order on 29.10.1987

and  confirmed the  earlier  order.  Therefore,  the  RTS Appeal

No.128 of 1987 was preferred before the Collector, which was

disposed off by the Additional Collector on 13.7.1993. By the

said order, the Order of the third Sub-Divisional Officer was

maintained. However, further inquiry as directed by the SDO

was to be conducted. Since the mutation Entry No.1836 was

cancelled  by  above  order,  the  Talathi  gave  effect  to  these

orders and effected the mutation Entry No.2176 and showed

the  disputed  properties  in  the  name  of  the  Collector  and

Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties. The directions were

issued by the Collector to the Tahsildar to place the appellant

in possession of the property as per the orders of the Deputy

Collector  and  the  Deputy  Custodian  of  Evacuee  Properties.

However,  instead of  giving effect  to those orders,  it  appears

that  the  Revenue  Officers  at  Tahsil  level  effected  two

7

Page 8

mutations,  viz,  Mutation  No.2377  and  2394.  By  mutation

entry No.2377 the name of respondent was again mutated in

the record and by the mutation Entry No.2394 the name of

Genu Kadu was mutated in  the  record.  Since  the  Collector

noticed on complaint that the orders of the Collector has been

bypassed or surpassed by the Subordinate Revenue Officers,

the Collector by order dated 12.7.1999 directed the SDO to

take  these  mutations  namely  mutation  Entry  No.2377  and

2394  in  revision  and  therefore  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer,

Maval Division has taken these mutations in revision bearing

RTS Revision No.12 of 1999. The said revision was decided by

the Sub Divisional  officer  at  Maval  on 28.1.2000 and those

mutations were cancelled.  

8. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the said revision,

Respondent No.2 Lalwani preferred RTS Appeal No.81 of 2000

and the Respondent No.3 Genu Kadu preferred RTS Appeal

No.114 of 2000. Both these RTS Appeals were heard by the

Additional Collector, Pune and by order dated 28.5.2001 the

8

Page 9

Addl.  Collector,  Pune  dismissed  the  said  appeals  and

confirmed  the  order  of  the  Sub  Divisional  Officer,  Maval.

Aggrieved  by  the  said  order  of  the  Additional  Collector,

Respondent  No.2  preferred  RTS  Revision  No.330  of  2001

under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966

before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. The

said  revision was decided by the Additional  Commissioner,

Pune by  order  dated 22.11.2001 and the  said revision was

dismissed.

9.   Respondent No.2 challenged this order of the Additional

Commissioner  by  filing  the  proceeding  RTS

3402/Pra.kra.309/L-6 by way of  second revision before  the

Revenue  Minister  for  State  and  the  said  proceeding  was

decided by the Minister for State on 18.10.2002. The Revenue

Minister allowed the said proceeding and set aside the orders

passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Maval dated 28.1.2000,

order  dated  28.5.2001  of  Additional  Collector,  Pune  and  of

Additional  Commissioner  dated  22.11.2001,  and  thus,

9

Page 10

restored  the  position  as  reflected  by  the  Mutation  Entries

Nos.1836 and 2377 and 2394. Thus, all the entries in favour

of  the  Respondents  were  protected  and  maintained  by  the

order of the State Minister for Revenue.  

10. Appellant challenged the order dated 19.10.2002 passed

by the Minister by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed

by  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Bombay  High  Court.

Thereafter,  the  appellant  filed  Letters  Patent  Appeal,  which

was also dismissed by the Division Bench holding that when

the State Minister for Revenue entertained the matter, he was

possessed  of  jurisdiction  under  Section  257  of  the

Maharashtra  Land  Revenue  Code  and,  therefore,  the  order

passed  by  him  under  the  said  authority  is  within  his

jurisdiction,  power  and  competence.    The  Division  Bench

observed thus:

“…We record our finding that under Section 257 of the Maharashtra  Land  Revenue  Code  more  than  one revision  is  possible.  Now coming  to  the  facts  of  the present case, the mutation Entry No.1836 was in fact certified.  However,  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer  has taken the said mutation in revision in RTS Revision

10

Page 11

No.14 of 1984 and has set aside the mutation by order dated  30.7.1985.  There  was  appeal  as  against  that order which was remanded. It was again decided by the Sub Divisional Officer on 29.10.1987 and the said mutation was set aside. There was RTS Appeal No.128 of 1987 which was  decided on 13.7.1993. In view of these  orders  the  mutation  entry  No.1836  was cancelled  and  Mutation  Entry  No.2176  was  effected whereby  the  name  of  the  Collector  and  the  Deputy Collector of the Evacuee Property was entered into 7 X 12 extracts. It is further found that when the orders of the  Collector  directing  to  put  the  petitioner  into possession  were  not  obeyed  by  the  subordinate Revenue Officers and the Revenue Officers effected the mutation entry No.2377 in favour of the Respondent Nos.3 Gulabai Desai and Mutation Entry No.2394 in favour  of  the  Respondent  No.5  Genu  Kadu  and thereafter  for  second  time  the  special  Divisional Officer,  Maval,  has  exercised  the  revisional  powers under  Section  257  and  initiated  proceeding  RTS Revision 12 of 1999 in respect of the mutation entry No.2377  and  2394.  The  RTS  Revision  12/99  was allowed on 28.1.2000 as against that two RTS appeals namely,  RTS Appeal No.81 of  2000 and RTS Appeal No.114  of  2000  were  preferred  by  the  Respondent. They were decided on 28.5.2001. As against that the RTS Revision No.330 of 2001 was preferred. The same was  dismissed.  As  against  that  the  RTS  proceeding bearing  No.3402  /Pra.Kra.309/L-6  was  preferred before the Minister for State. All these proceedings will show  that  twice  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer  has exercised the revisional  power  under  Section 257 at the  directions  of  the  Collector,  namely  the  RTS Revision  No.14  of  1984  and  RTS  Revision  No.12  of 1999. It will further reveal that the appeals as against the RTS Revision No.14 of 1984 was preferred by the parties in view of  the provisions of  Section 247 and 249 sub-section 2. It will equally appear that when the orders  were passed in Revision Application No.12 of 1999 before the Sub Divisional Officer in exercise of the  powers  under  Section  257  the  parties  have preferred two RTS appeals in view of the provisions of Section  247  and  249  sub-section  2.  Not  only  that,

11

Page 12

thereafter  the  RTS  Revision  Application  No.330  of 2001 was also preferred before the Commissioner and if  the  view is  taken  that  the  second  revision  is  not tenable  then  in  that  circumstances  since  the  first order  passed  in  RTS  Revision  No.12  of  1999  is  a revisional  order,  this  second  revision  before  the Commissioner  being  RTS  Revision  No.330  of  2001 would not have been tenable.  However, said revision RTS  330  of  2001  is  tenable  since  the  appeals  as provided  under  Section  247  and  249  intervene  in between  the  revisional  orders  passed  by  the Sub-Divisional officer and the Commissioner. Thus, in short,  we  find  that  the  scheme  under  Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is quite different  scheme and it permits  more  than  one  revision.  Thus,  viewed  from any angle, we find that the State Minister for Revenue when  he  entertained  the  matter,  State  Minister  for revenue was possessed of  jurisdiction under  Section 257  of  the  Maharashtra  Land  Revenue  Code  and therefore  the  order  passed  by  him  under  the  said authority  is  within  his  jurisdiction,  power  and competence.”  

11. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.

12. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellant, mainly attacked the revisional power exercised

by the Minister concerned in purported exercise of jurisdiction

under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.  In

the alternative, learned Senior counsel submitted that  even if

it were to be admitted without prejudice that second revision

is  maintainable,  the  Minister  being  the  revisional  authority

12

Page 13

should not have interfered with the findings recorded by all

the  six  Revenue  Authorities.   Referring  the  decision  of  the

Bombay High Court in the case of  Sambappa vs. State of

Maharashtra [(2002)  SCC  on  line,  Bombay  1222],  learned

counsel  submitted  that  when  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer,

Additional  Collector  and  Additional  Commissioner  had

concurrently  recorded  finding  in  favour  of  the  appellant  by

observing that the revenue record is not in consonance with

the  factual  aspect  and  they  have  directed  to  correct  the

revenue  entries,  in  such  a  case,  the  second  revisional

authority  exceeded  its  jurisdiction  in  entertaining  the  said

application and interfering with the finding of  fact.   Section

257 makes it clear that a revisional authority has to consider

only  the  legality  and  propriety  of  the  decision.   Learned

counsel referring the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court

under  Section  115  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  tried  to

impress us that  when the power of  revision is  given to the

District Judge, then the High Court cannot entertain second

revision  petition  under  Section  115  of  the  Code.   Learned

13

Page 14

counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the  case of

State of Kerala vs. K.M. Charia Abdulla & Co., AIR 1965

SC  1585  and  Hari  Shankar  vs.  Rao  Girdhari  Lal

Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698.

13. Mr.  Ahmadi,  learned  senior  counsel  further  submitted

that a request was made to the High Court not to enter into

the  merit  of  the  case,  and to  confine  itself  to  the  question

whether a second revision was at all maintainable, in the light

of the ratio in  Harishankar’s case (supra), (1962) Suppl.(1)

SCR 933,  Hiralal Kapur vs. Prabhu Choudhury, (1988)  2

SCC  172  and   Helper  Girdharbhai  vs.  Saiyed  Mohmad

Mirasaheb Kadri and others, (1987) 3 SCC 538.  Learned

counsel also drew our attention to the decision of this Court in

Dharampal vs. Ramshri, (1993) 1 SCC 435 where this Court

held that a second revision to the High Court under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. was not permitted.

14

Page 15

14. Lastly,  Mr.  Ahmadi  submitted that  the second revision

would not lie under Section 257 of the Revenue Code since

Section 259 of the Code provides an opportunity to the State

Government to only correct any “Final Order” while exercising

power under the provisions of Section 257 i.e. with regard to

its legality and propriety.  

15. Mr.  Ravindra  Srivastava,  learned  senior  counsel

appearing  for  the  respondent–State,  at  the  very  outset

submitted that the appellant conceded before the High Court

not  to decide the merit  of  the  case.   The only  point  raised

before the High Court was with regard to the maintainability of

second revision before  the  State  Government  under  Section

257 of  the Revenue Code.   Learned counsel  submitted that

Section 257 expressly confers power of revision on the State

Government which power is coupled with power of control and

superintendence.   Learned  counsel  submitted  that  the

Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner is not equal in

a rank but  subordinate  to  the  State  Government.   Learned

15

Page 16

counsel submitted that the State Government is the supreme

revenue authority and existence of more than one appeal or

revision to an aggrieved party is not per se abhorrent to any

legal principle; depends upon the Statute.  Mr. Srivastava then

contended  that  the  High  Court  correctly  analysed  and

appreciated the scheme of the Code vis a vis judicial review in

revenue matters.  Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the

decision of this Court in the case of  Ishwar Singh vs. State

of  Rajasthan  and  others,  (2005)  2  SCC  334  for  the

proposition  that  there  can  be  a  second  revision  under  the

same provision of the Statute.  

16. The  only  question  that  falls  for  consideration  is  as  to

whether a second revision under Section 257 is maintainable

and  that  whether  the  State  Government  exceeds  its

jurisdiction in entertaining the second revision?

16

Page 17

17. Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid question, we

would like to refer the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code 1966.  

18. Section 2(31) defines the Revenue Officer as under:-

“2 (31)"  revenue officer"  means every  officer  of any rank whatsoever appointed under any of the provisions  of  this  Code,  and  employed  in  or about the business of the land revenue or of the surveys,  assessment,  accounts,  or  records connected therewith ;”  

19. Chapter II deals with the Revenue Officers, their powers

and duties. Sections 5, 6 and 7 reads as under:-

“5.  Chief  Controlling  authority  in  revenue matters.  The  chief  controlling  authority  in  all matters connected with the land revenue in his division shall vest in the Commissioner, subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the State Government.  

6.Revenue  Officers  in  division. The  State Government  shall  appoint  a  Commissioner  of each division; and may appoint in a division an Additional Commissioner and so many Assistant Commissioners  as may be expedient,  to assist the Commissioner:  Provided  that,  nothing  in  this  section  shall preclude the appointment of the same officer as Commissioner for two or more divisions.  

7.Revenue  officers  in  district.  (1)The  State Government  shall  appoint  a  Collector  for  each district (including the City of Bombay  who shall

17

Page 18

be in charge of the revenue administration there of ; and a Tahsildar for each taluka who shall be the chief officer entrusted with the local revenue administration of a taluka.  (2)The  State  Government  may  appoint  one  or more Additional Collectors and in each district (including  the  City  of  Bombay   and  so  many Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors (with such  designations  such  as  "First",  "Second", Super  numerary",  etc.  Assistants  as  may  be expressed in the order of their appointment), one or more Naib-Tahsildars in a taluka, and one or more  Additional  Tahsidars  or  Naib-Tahsildars therein  and  such  other  persons  (having  such designations) to assist the revenue officers as it may deem expedient.  (3)Subject  to  the  general  orders  of  the  State Government,  the  Collector  may  place  any Assistant or Deputy Collector  in charge of  one more sub-divisions of a district, or may himself retain charge thereof. Such Assistant or Deputy Collector  may  also  be  called  a  Sub-Divisional Officer. (4) The Collector may appoint to each district as many  persons  as  he  thinks  fit  to  be  Circle Officers and Circle Inspectors to be in charge of a Circle,  and one or more Talathis for  a saza, and  one  or  more  Kotwals  or  other  village servants for each village or group of villages, as he may deem fit.”

20. Section  11  of  the  Code  is  worth  to  be  quoted  herein

below:-

“11.Subordination of officers.  (1)All  revenue officers shall  be subordinate to the State Government.  (2)Unless  the  State  Government  directs otherwise, all revenue officers in a division shall be  subordinate  to  the  Commissioner,  and  all

18

Page 19

revenue  Officers  2[in  a  district  (including  the City  of  Bombay)]  shall  be  subordinate  to  the Collector.  3)Unless  the  State  Government  directs otherwise,  all  other Revenue Officers Including survey officers shall be subordinated, the one to the  other,  in  such  order  as  the  State Government may direct.”

21. Sections 13 and 14 deal with the powers and duties of all

Revenue Officers.

22. From reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest

that the State Government makes appointment of the Revenue

Officers including the Commissioner and the Chief Controlling

Authorities in the revenue matters.  Section 5 makes it clear

that the Chief Controlling Authority in all matters connected

with  the  land  revenue  in  his  Division  shall  vest  with  the

Commissioner,  subject  to  superintendence,  directions  and

control  of the State Government.  Section 11 provides that all

Revenue  Officers  shall  be  subordinate  to  the  State

Government.  It is, therefore, clear that in revenue matters the

State Government is the Supreme Revenue Authority.

19

Page 20

23. In the present case, we noticed the scheme of the Code in

the matters of hearing and disposal of appeals, revision and

review.   Section  247  deals  with  the  appeal  and  appellate

authorities, which reads as under:-

“247.Appeal and appellate authorities.  (1)In the absence of any express provisions of this Code,  or of  any law for the time being in force  to the contrary,  an appeal  shall  lie  from any decision  or  order  passed  by  a  revenue or survey  officer  specified  in  column  1  of  the Schedule E under this Code or any other law for the time being in force to the officer specified in column 2 of that Schedule whether or not such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from the decision of order of the officer specified in column 1 of the said Schedule.  

Provided that, in no case the number of appeals  shall exceed two.  

(2)When on account of  promotion of change of designation,  an appeal  against any decision or order lies under this section to the same officer who has passed the decision or order appealed against, the appeal shall lie to such other officer competent to decide the appeal to whom it may be  transferred  under  the  provisions  of  this Code.”  

24. Section 248 is also relevant which provides the forum of

appeal to the State Government.  Similarly, Section 249 makes

provision of appeal against the review or revision.

20

Page 21

25. The schedule preferred to in Section 227 mentions the

Authorities  before  whom  appeal  would  lie.  The  Schedule

appended to the Code is as follows:-

Schedule E (See section 247)

REVENUE OFFICER APPELLATE AUTHORITY 1. 1., All Officers in a Sub-Division,  

sub-ordinate to the  Sub-division  Off

Sub-divisional  Officer  or such  Assistant  or  Deputy Collector  as  may  be specified  by  the  Collector in this behalf.

2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Assistant  or Deputy Collector.

Collector or such Assistant or  Deputy  Collector  who may  be  invested  with powers of the Collector by the  State  Government  in this behalf

3. Collector  1  (including  the Collector  of  Bombay)  or Assistant/Deputy  Collector invested with the appellate power of the Collector.,

Divisional Commissioner.

4. A person exercising powers  conferred by section 2 (15).,

Such officer as may be  specified by the State  Government in this behalf.

Survey Officer Appellate Authority 1. District  Inspector  of  Land

Records,  Survey  Tahsildar  and other Officer not above the rank of  District  Inspector  of  Land Records.,

Superintendent  of  Land Records or such Officers of equal  ranks  as  may  be specified  by  the  State Government in this behalf.

2. Superintendent  of  Land Records and other Officer of equal ranks.,.

Director of Land Records or the  Deputy  Director  of Land Records, who may be invested with the powers of Director  of  Land  Records by the State Government in this behalf.

21

Page 22

26. Section 257 is the relevant provision which deals with the

power of State Government and of certain revenue and survey

officers to call for and examine the records and proceedings of

Subordinate Officers.  Section 257 reads as under:-

“257.  Power  of  State  Government  and  of certain revenue and survey officers to call for and  examine  records  and  proceedings  of subordinate officers.  (1)  The State  Government  and any revenue  of survey  officer,  not  inferior  in  rank  to  an Assistant  or  Deputy  Collector  or  a Superintendent  of  Land  Records,  in  their respective  departments,  may  call  for  and examine  the  record  of  any  inquiry  or  the proceedings  of  any  subordinate  revenue  or survey officer, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. (2) A Tahsildar, a Naib-Tahsildar, and a District Inspector  of  Land  Records  may  in  the  same manner call for and examine the proceedings of any officer subordinate to them in any matter in which neither a formal nor a summary inquiry has been held. (3)If  in  any  case,  it  shall  appear  to  the  State Government,  or  any  officer  referred  to  in sub-section  (1)  or  sub-section  (2)  that  any decision  or  order  or  proceedings  so  called  for should be modified, annulled or reversed, it  or he  may  pass  such  order  thereon  as  it  or  he deems fit.  Provided  that,  the  State  Government  or  such officer  shall  not  vary  or  reverse  any  order affecting any question of  right  between private

22

Page 23

persons without having to the parties interested notice to appear and to be heard in support of such order.  Provided  further  that,  an  Assistant  of  Deputy Collector  shall  not  himself  pass  such order  in any matter in which a formal inquiry has been held,  but  shall  submit  the  record  with  his opinion  to  the  Collector,  who  shall  pall  such order thereon as he may deem fit.”

27. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would show that

the provision uses the word ‘and’ for State Government but for

other Revenue officers it uses the word ‘or’.  The language and

the words used in the said provision suggest that jurisdiction

of the State Government is concurrent with the jurisdiction of

other Revenue officers in deciding the revision.  Hence, even if

one  party  goes  to  the  Commissioner  in  revision,  the  State

Government  can  still  be  approached  under  Section  257 for

revision.   The  power  of  revision  exercised  by  any  Revenue

officer  including  the  Commissioner  is  a  proceeding  by  a

subordinate officer and the State Government can satisfy itself

as to the legality and propriety of any decision including the

order passed in revision by the Revenue officers.

23

Page 24

28. Further, in view of the fact that State Government itself

appoints  the  Revenue  officers  including  the  Commissioner

under  the scheme of  the Code and all  Revenue officers  are

subordinate to the State Government as per Section 11 of the

Act,  and even the Chief  Controlling Authority in all  matters

connected with the land revenue in his Division is vested with

the Commissioner,  they are subject to the superintendence,

direction  and  control  of  the  State  Government  as  provided

under  Section  5  of  the  Code.   The  power  of  the  State

Government has further been widened by Section 259 of the

Code, which reads as under:-

“259. Rules as to decisions or orders expressly made final

Whenever  in  this  Code,  it  is  provided  that  a decision  or  order  shall  be  final  or  conclusive,  such provision shall mean that no appeal lies from any such decision or order; but it  shall be lawful to the State Government  alone  to  modify,  annul  or  reverse  any such decision or order under the provision of Section 257.”

29. The aforesaid provision makes it  clear that  even if  the

decision  is  considered  to  be  final,  the  State  Government’s

power to call for and examine the record and proceedings of

24

Page 25

subordinate  officers  is  saved.   In  other  words,  the  State

Government  in  exercise  of  its  revisional  as  well  as  general

power of superintendence and control can call for any record

of proceedings and consider the legality and propriety of the

orders passed by the Revenue officers under Section 247 or

257 of the Code.   

30. From perusal of the entire scheme of the Code including

Section 257, it is manifest that the revisional powers are not

only exercisable by the State Government but also by certain

other  Revenue  officers.   There  is  nothing  in  the  Code  to

suggest  that  if  these  revisional  powers  are  exercised  by  a

Revenue  officer  who  has  jurisdiction,  it  cannot  be  further

exercised  by  a  superior  Revenue  officer  or  by  the  State

Government.  A fair reading of Sections 257 and 259 suggests

that  if  revisional  powers are exercised by a Revenue officer

having jurisdiction to do so, further revisional power can be

exercised by the superior officer or by the State Government.

25

Page 26

31. A  similar  question  came  for  consideration  before  this

Court in the case of  Ishwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan

and  Others,  (2005)  2  SCC  334  under  the  Rajasthan

Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.  In that Ac,t by Section 128

power  was  conferred  upon  the  State  Government  and  the

Registrar to call for and examine the records of any enquiry  or

proceedings of any other  matter, of any  officer subordinate to

them,  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  themselves  as  to  the

legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by such

officer.   It  was  submitted  by  the  counsel  that  Section  128

related to two authorities i.e. the State Government and the

Registrar.  In fact the two authorities are interchangeable.  If

one authority exercises revisional power, the other authority

logically  cannot  have  exercised  such  power.  Hence,  it  was

argued that second revision was not maintainable. Rejecting

the submission this Court held:-

“20. Sub-section (2) of Section 124 provides that if the decision or order is made by the Registrar, appeal lies to the Government and if the decision or order is made by  any  other  person,  or  a  cooperative  society,  the appeal lies to the Registrar. Therefore, under Chapter XIII  a  clear  distinction  is  made  between  the  State

26

Page 27

Government and the Registrar. The test is whether the two authorities with concurrent revisional jurisdiction are  equal  in  rank.  It  is,  therefore,  not  correct  as contended by learned counsel  for  the appellant  that the two authorities i.e. the State Government and the Registrar  are  interchangeable.  The  power  of  the Government and the Registrar in terms of Section 128 excludes matters which are covered by Section 125 i.e. revision by the Tribunal.”

32. Considering  the  entire  scheme  of  the  Code,  and  the

provisions contained in Sections 257 and 259, we are of the

definite  opinion  that  the  Minister  concerned  of  the  State

Government  can  entertain  second  revision  to  satisfy  the

legality  and  propriety  of  the  order  passed  by  the  Revenue

Officer.  The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has

elaborately discussed the question and passed the impugned

order holding that Section 257 confers jurisdiction to the State

Government to entertain its revision against the order passed

by any Revenue Officer either in appeal or in revision.  We find

no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court.

Hence,  this  appeal  has  no  merit  which  is  accordingly

dismissed.  

27

Page 28

33. Before parting with the order, we must make it clear that

in view of the request made by the appellant before the High

Court not to enter into the merit of the case since the party

may  prosecute  their  remedies  in  the  Civil  Court  for

adjudication, we have not expressed any opinion with regard

to  the  merit  of  the  case  of  the  parties.  The  parties  may

prosecute their remedies in Civil Court in accordance with law.

…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………….J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi November 06, 2015

28