Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Pursuant to such report the Collector authorized the Tahsildar Badnapur to undertake a proceeding under Section 48 (7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (herein after the MLRC). Show cause notices were issued to the petitioner. Observing that it had not responded, by the impugned orders respondent Tahsildar directed the

949.WP.7187.21.odt petitioner Company to deposit various sums mentioned in the impugned orders ranging in crores of rupees pursuant to the provision under Section 48(7).

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that it is challenging the action of Tahsildar primarily on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding and pass order under Section 48(7) of the MLRC. He would submit that the provision empowers a Collector to exercise the power and also permits him to authorize any of his subordinate officers not below the rank of Tahsildar to exercise that power. However, according to the learned advocate such delegation of power by the Collector to the Tahsildar is regulated by the provision of Section 330 A of the MLRC and which prescribes two conditions for such delegation, firstly, the approval of the State Government and, secondly, notification of such order in the Official Gazette. The learned advocate would further submit that there is absolutely no material to demonstrate that the Collector in the matter in hand had legally delegated his power under Section 48(7) to the Tahsildar and for this reason alone the impugned orders of the Tahsildar having been passed without jurisdiction are liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. The learned AGP and the learned advocate Mr. Girase would then submit that the impugned orders have been passed under Section 48(7) of the MLRC. The Code contains a specific Chapter XIII providing for appeals and revisions against the orders passed under it. When the MLRC is a complete Code in itself, the remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 247 is an efficacious and alternate remedy available to the petitioner and no exception can be allowed to be made. They would submit that if it is found that the Tahsildar has jurisdiction and power to pass the impugned orders under Section 48(7), the petitioner has no other alternative except to prefer an appeal under Section 247.

14. But then a careful perusal of the wording of Section 330A demonstrates that it is applicable save as specifically provided in the Code. The provision begins with the words which clearly indicate that the

949.WP.7187.21.odt provision is general in character and is not to be pressed into service if the MLRC in any other provision provides for delegation. Therefore when Section 48(7) specifically empowers a Collector to authorize any Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar to exercise the power under that provision, one cannot resort to the general provision contained in Section 330A. It would be applicable only if and when any provision in the MLRC does not speak about any delegation or authorization to be given by the Collector. If, still, the Collector intends to delegate the powers then only he will have to approach the State Government for approval and to issue a notification in the Official Gazatte or independently even the State Government can delegate such powers and issue a notification in the Official Gazette delegating such powers. Therefore it is quite clear that the authorization to be given by the Collector under Section 48 (7) is not regulated by the prescription contained in Section 330A.