Holding

Revenue officers possess both appellate and revisional authority under the Abolition Act and the Land Revenue Code, so a suo‑moto revision of the Collector’s order is permissible.

Summary

The appellants sought validation of land transfers under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, which the Collector approved. The Commissioner, invoking section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, issued a revision of the Collector’s order, which was affirmed by the Board of Revenue. The appellants contended that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction because the Abolition Act was a complete code and provided a right of appeal under section 84, precluding any suo‑moto revision. The Supreme Court examined whether the two statutes were in pari materia and whether revenue officers could exercise both appellate and revisional powers concurrently. It held that the Acts are in pari materia, the officers act under both statutes, and the revisional power under section 50 of the Code (and even under the Abolition Act) is valid irrespective of the existence of an appeal provision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the Commissioner of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code has jurisdiction to revise a Collector's order passed under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act.
Whether the existence of an appeal provision under section 84 of the Abolition Act bars the exercise of suo‑moto revisional power under the Land Revenue Code.
Whether the two statutes are in pari materia such that a revenue officer can exercise both appellate and revisional powers simultaneously.

Legislation cited

Subjects

land revenuerevisionappellate jurisdictionsuo moto revisionstatutes in pari materiaMadhya PradeshAbolition ActLand Revenue Code

Judgment

809

A
MST. SADIQUA BEGUM & ORS.
v.
THE BOARD OF REVENUE, MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ;..
B
February I, 1985
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.)

c Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated
Lilnds) Act, 1950 and M. P. Lilnd Revenue Code, 1959-Both the statutesinpari
mat1ria-Revem1e Officers exercising powers under both Acts cognately-Provisional
y
power can be exerciSed by Revenue Officers under both Acts.

The Collector validated certain transfers on the applications or appellant.
u/s. 6 of the M. P. Abolition Act 1950 but a revision was taken by the Commis-
D •ioner H/•. j() of the M. P. Land Revenue Code 1959 (for short, the Code) agailllt
the order of the Collector. The appellants' contention before the Commissioner
that he had no jurisdiction or power to revise the order of the Colloctor was
rejected. Tho Board of Rennuc in th• revisiou aad tllo High Co11rt ia a it'rit
petition filed by the appellant• confirm•d the view of the CommiS!ioner. Hence
this appeal.
E The appellants contended (i) that the order of the Collector was not revis-
able under the Code because the Abolition Act was a Code or a law complete
in itself and conferred no powers of revision or appeal outside the Abolition Act
and therefore the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain suo moto
revision; (ii) that since there was a right of appeal under sec. 84 of the Abolition
Act, no revisional power could be exercised either by Commissioner or by the
F
Board of Revenue under the Code; and (iii) that even assumina that the Abolition
Act and the Code were statutes in pari materia, they possess two clearcut and
separate powers, that is to say, no suo moto revision could lie to the Revenue
Officers unless a revision or appeal was filed before the Commissioner by the
party.

G Dismissing the appeal, to this Court

HELD : (I) A perusal of the schemes ol the Abolition Act and the Code
clearly h1dicates that the two Acts were in part mater/a and the revenue officers
were 1xercisin1 powers under both the Acts cognately. There was no clearcut
distinction between a Revenue Officer acting under the Abolition Act and acting y
uader the Code. This beina; the position, it is manifest that the revisional powers
ccutd be exercised by the Revenue Officers under s. 50 of the Code and even
~nd9r tile Abolition Act as well. [8U2D-EJ
SADIQUA BEGUM v. REVENUE BOARD (Faza/ Ali, J.) 801

(2) Under the provisions of, the Abolition Act as also the Code, both the A
Commissioner an4 the :Boa.rd were appellate as also revisional authorities. Thus,
when two powers were coaf•rrtd on the said officers in a sort of a combined
capacity, it cannot be said that merely because the formality of filing a reaular
appeal before the Commissioner or the Board was not adopted, a suo moto
re•ision would not lie. [302H; 81 JA·B]

Int hi io1tant case, both the Conamis1ioner and the Board of Reyenwc had B
appellate as also rcvisional powers. Both these powers beina conferred on the
same authority, the difference between the exercise of a reYision or appeal was
a mere idlt formality and was of no consoq uence. [803C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JUJUSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 245 (N)
of 1971.
c
Appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated the
9th February, 1979 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur
in Miscellaneous Petition No. 361 of 1967.

Mukul Rohtagl. and A.. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellants.
D
Ravinder Bana and A. K. Sanghi for the Respondents

The Judgment of the Court wa1 delivered by

F AZAL Au, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against a
judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ E
petition filed by the appellants against certain orders of the Revenue
Officers nndor the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of
Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahal&, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950
(for short, 'Abolition Act') which came into force sometime in the
year 1951. By virtue of s.6 of the Abolition Act all transfers made
F
by proprietors at any time after 16th March 1950 were deemed to be
void unles• declared valid by the Collector on a proper application
made to him. The transferees, in view of the aforesaid provisions,
filed applications before the Collector in 1964 who validated the
transfers by his order dated 6th June 1964. Against the order of
the Collector a revision was taken by the Commissioner in exercise G
of his powers under s. 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The transferees objected to
the jurisdiction of the Commhsioner on the ground that he had no
power to revise the order of the Collector. This contention was
rejected by the Commissioner and hence, a revision was taken to the
Board of Revenue which confirmed the view of the Commissioner.
It was a,\lainst this order that the appellants filed a writ petition ff
j
802 SUPRllMB COURT REPORTS
..
[1985] 2 S.C.R.
A before the High Court assailing the orders of the Commissioner as
also the Board of Revenue.

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that any
order passed under s.6 of the Abolition Act was not revisable under
the Code because the Abolition Act was a Code or a law complete
B in itself and conferred no powers of revision or appeal outside the
Abolition Act. Hence, it was contended, the Commissioner had no
jurisdiction to entertain suo moto revision. In the second place, it
was argued that under s. 84 of the Abolition Act appeals were pro-
vided against all orders passed by Revenue Officers and since there
was a right of appeal provided under the Act, no revisional power
c could be exercised either by the Commissioner or by tho Board of
Revenue under the Code. It was also faintly urged before the High
Court that the Revenue Officers when exercising powers under the
Abolition Act were not exercising the powers as Revenue Officers
but as a persona designata under the Abolition Act In other words,
D the contention raised before the High Court, which was repeated
before us, was that the Revenue Officers had a dual capacity-(!)
under the Abolition Act, and (2) under the Code. The High Court,
however; rejected the contention and, in our opinion, rightly.

A perusal of the schemes of tho Abolition Act and the Code
E clearly indicates that the two Acts were in pari materia and the
revenue officers were exercising powers under both the Acts cogna-
tely. There was no clearcut distinction between a Revenue Officer·
acting under the Abolition Act and acting under the Code. This
being the position, it is manifest that the revisional powers could be
exercised by the Revenue Officers under s. 50 of the Code and even
F under the Abolition Act as well. We find ourselves in complete
agreement with the view taken by the High Court on this point and
which was also not seriously challenged before us.

The sheet·anchor of the contention of the learned counsel for
the a:ipellants before us was that even assuming that the two statutes
(Abolition Act and the Code) were statutes in pari maieria, they
G possess two clearc·ut and separate powers, that is to say, no suo moto
revision could lie to the Revenue Officers uuless a revision or appeal
was filed before the Commissioner by the party.

It is not disputed in this case that the Commissioner Board of
Revenue passed the order in exercise of their revisional powers. It
would, however, appear t)lat under the provisions ·of the Abolition
SADIQUA BEGUM v. REVENUE BOARD (Faza/ Ali, J.) 803

Act as also the Code, both the Commissioner and the Board were A
appellate as also revisional authorities. Thus, when two powers were
conferred on the said officers in a sort of a combined capacity, it
' . cannot be said that merely because the formality of filing a regular
appeal before the Commissioner or the Board was not adopted, a
suo moto revision would not lie. The contention could have some
substance if there would have been any statutory embargo on the B
hierarchy of the Officers mentioned above to entertain any revision
against an order passed by one authority without filing an appeal
before it.

In the instant case, we find that both the Commissioner and
the Board of Revenue had appellate as also revisional powers. Both
these powers being conferred on the same authority, the difference
c
between the exercise of a revision or appeal was a mere idle formality
-. and was of no consequence.

The result is that all the contentions raised by the appellants
fail and the eppeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case
without any order as to costs. D

M.L.A . Appeal dismissed.
•