text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
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 Ratio |
Section 11 provides that all Revenue Officers shall be subordinate to the State Government Ratio |
It is,therefore,clear that in revenue matters the State Government is the Supreme Revenue Authority Ratio |
In the present case,we noticed the scheme of the Code in the matters of hearing and disposal of appeals,revision and review Ratio |
Section 247 deals with the appeal and appellate authorities,which reads as under:- "247.Appeal and appellate authorities STA |
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 specifi... |
Provided that,in no case the number of appeals shall exceed two STA |
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 ... |
Section 248 is also relevant which provides the forum of appeal to the State Government STA |
Similarly,Section 249 makes provision of appeal against the review or revision STA |
The schedule preferred to in Section 227 mentions the Authorities before whom appeal would lie STA |
The Schedule appended to the Code is as follows:- Schedule E (See section 247 STA |
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 STA |
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 STA |
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 satisf... |
A Tahsildar,a Naib-Tahsildar,and a District Inspector of Land Records STA |
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 STA |
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 STA |
Provided that,the State Government or such officer shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any question of right between private persons without having to the parties interested notice to appear and to be heard in support of such order STA |
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 STA |
A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would show that the provision uses the word 'and' for State Government but for other Revenue officers Ratio |
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 Ratio |
Hence,even if one party goes to the Commissioner in revision,the State Government can still be approached under Section 257 for revision Ratio |
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 Ratio |
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 rev... |
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 de... |
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 subordinate officers is saved Ratio |
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 Ratio |
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 Ratio |
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 Ratio |
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 Ratio |
A similar question came for consideration before this Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs PRE |
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... |
It was submitted by the counsel that Section 128 related to two authorities i.e.the State Government and the Registrar PRE |
In fact the two authorities are interchangeable PRE |
If one authority exercises revisional power,the other authority logically cannot have exercised such power PRE |
Hence,it was argued that second revision was not maintainable PRE |
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 PRE |
Therefore,under Chapter XIII a clear distinction is made between the State Government and the Registrar PRE |
The test is whether the two authorities with concurrent revisional jurisdiction are equal in rank PRE |
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 PRE |
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 PRE |
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 RPC |
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 RPC |
We find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court RPC |
Hence,this appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed RPC |
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 t... |
The parties may prosecute their remedies in Civil Court in accordance with law RPC |
Petition dismissed RPC |
ON: Criminal Appeals Nos.165 168 of 1962. FAC |
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1962 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos.527 to 530 of 1962. FAC |
Nuruddin Ahmad and U. P. Singh, for the appellants. FAC |
section P. Varma and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents. FAC |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. FAC |
This judgment will also govern Crl.No. 166 of 1962, 167 of 1962 and 168 of 1962. FAC |
A common question arises in these appeals from a judgment of the Patna High Court dismissing four revision applications preferred before it by four sets of appellants in the appeals before us. FAC |
Counsel on both the sides agree that since the relevant facts of all the proceedings are similar and the question of law arising from them is the same it will be sufficient to refer to the facts of Case No. TR 320/60. FAC |
Four informations were lodged at the police station, Ghora Saha on April 14, 1960 by different persons against the different appellants in these cases and a similar information was lodged against some of the appellants by one Mali Ram. FAC |
In all these cases the allegations made by the informants were that each set of the accused persons armed with deadly weapons went to the shops of the various informants, demanded from them large sums of money and threatened them with death if they failed to pay the amounts demanded by them. FAC |
The informations also stated that 742 some of these persons paid part of the money and were given time to pay the balance while some agreed to pay the amounts demanded. FAC |
Upon informations given by these persons offences under section 392, Indian Penal Code, were registered by the station officer and after investigation five challans were lodged by him, in the court of Magistrate. FAC |
First Class at Motihari. FAC |
One of the cases ended in an acquittal but we have not been informed of the date of the judgment in that case. FAC |
In the other four cases trial had come to a close in that all the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses had been examined and the cases had been closed for judgment. FAC |
In the case against the appellants in Crl. A. 165 of 1962 the challan was presented on October 27, 1960. FAC |
The order sheet of that date reads as follows: Date of order Order with the Office action section No. or proceeding signature of taken with the Court date 1.27 10 1960 All the 4 accused are present Heard both sides. FAC |
It is argued on behalf of the prosecution that it is a fit case for adopting procedure under Chapter XVIII Cr. P. C. and also that the entire occurrence relates to offences committed on 4 dates so that all of them cannot be dealt with in a single case. ARG |
Discussed law point "Charge u/s 302, I.P.C. framed against accused Thakur Ram and Jagarnath Pd. and explained to them. FAC |
They plead not guilty. FAC |
This case will constitute an independent case. FAC |
As for the other parts of the alleged occurrence accused Jagarnath, Kamal Ram and Bansi Rain are charged separately u/s 384, I.P.C. and further accused Thakur Ram u/s 384/109, I.P.C. and explained to the respective accused. FAC |
They plead not guilty. FAC |
These charges relating to three incidents on 3 dates will constitute a separate single case. FAC |
Start separate order sheet for both Summons P.W. for 26 10 60 and 27 11 60.Accused as before. FAC |
Sd/ O. Nath". FAC |
The trial dragged on for nearly 15 months and then the prosecution made an application to the court for framing a charge 743 under section 386 or section 387, Indian Penal Code and for committing the case to a court of Sessions. FAC |
This was disposed of by the learned Magistrate on January 25, 1962. FAC |
The relevant portion of his order sheet of that date reads thus "Accused absent. FAC |
A petition for their representation u/s 540 A, Cr P.C. is filed. FAC |
Allowed. FAC |
No reference book is produced. FAC |
Persued the record. FAC |
The prosecution has pressed to refer the case to the Court of Sessions u/s 386 or 387 I.P.C. FAC |
On close scrutiny I find that the robbery defined inside 390 I.P.C. fully cover the ingredients pointed out and asked by the prosecution side. Ratio |
The case has entered in the defence stage. FAC |
This point was not introduced ever before. FAC |
The charge was framed u/s 392, I.P.C. after hearing the parties. FAC |
Although it may be referred to the superior court at any stage, I find no reason to do so. Ratio |
Put up on 28 2 62. FAC |
All accused to appear with D.Ws without fail. FAC |
Accused as before. FAC |
" On February 28, 1962 the prosecution moved a petition for stay of proceedings on the ground that it wanted to prefer an application for revision of the order of January 25, 1962. FAC |
Stay was refused and the case was proceeded with. FAC |
On March 17, 1962 the defence case was closed and the case was fixed for March 29, 1962 for arguments. FAC |
On that date a second application was made for committing the case to a court of Sessions. FAC |
It would appear from the order sheet of March 29, 1962 that the Magistrate heard the parties and ordered the case to be put up on the next day, that is March 30, 1962. FAC |
On this day the Magistrate passed an order to the following effect "30 3 62 All the 2 accused persons are present. FAC |
Having carefully gone through the law points and section 236 Cr.P.C. I do not find that it is a case exclusively coming u/s 386 or 387 I.P.C. Hence the prosecution prayer is rejected." FAC |
Immediately thereafter a revision application was preferred, not by the prosecution, but by Sagarmal, an informant in one of the other three cases. FAC |
The Sessions Judge, Champaran, after briefly reciting the facts and reasons on which the order of the trying Magistrate was founded, disposed of the revision application in the following words: .lm15 "The cases are of very serious nature and the framing of charges under sections 386 or 387, I.P.C. can 744 not be ruled ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.