Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae also assisted the Court and submitted that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble

16 (2010) 8 SCC 329 17 AIR 1961 SC 1669 18 (2018) 15 SCC 356 [2024:RJ-JP:42065-DB] (22 of 79) [SAW-756/2022] Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others (supra) is limited on the issue as to whether an order passed by a civil court is amenable to writ jurisdiction. Referring to various provisions contained in the Act of 1955 and the Act of 1956, learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the order passed by the Board of Revenue can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when it exercises judicial function but when it passes an order as Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, then, such order is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that though the Board of Revenue and other revenue courts may have trappings of civil court, they cannot be equated with civil court. The law enunciated in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others (supra) is not applicable in those cases where the orders passed by the Board of Revenue are challenged by filing writ petition before the High Court. Learned Amicus Curiae has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mahendra Kumar Jain Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (supra); Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others (supra); Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Vs. State of Gujarat & Others (supra); Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (supra); Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Others19; Ashok K. Jha & Others Vs. Garden Silk Mills Limited & Another20; and decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Kartar Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & 19 (2003) 6 SCC 675 20 (2009) 10 SCC 584 [2024:RJ-JP:42065-DB] (23 of 79) [SAW-756/2022] Others (supra); Ramesh Chand Tiwari & Others Vs. Board of Revenue & Others (supra); and Sukh Dev Vs. Prakash Chandra21.

32. The essential distinctions in the exercise of power between Articles 226 and 227 are well known and pointed out in Surya Dev Rai and with that we have no disagreement. But we are unable to agree with the legal proposition laid down in Surya Dev Rai that judicial orders passed by a civil court can be examined and then 26 AIR 1967 SC 1 27 (2002) 4 SCC 388 [2024:RJ-JP:42065-DB] (51 of 79) [SAW-756/2022] corrected/reversed by the writ court under Article 226 in exercise of its power under a writ of certiorari. We are of the view that the aforesaid proposition laid down in Surya Dev Rai, is contrary to the ratio in Mirajkar and the ratio in Mirajkar has not been overruled in Rupa Ashok Hurra.
33. In view of our difference of opinion with the views expressed in Surya Dev Rai, matter may be placed before His Lordship the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench, to consider the correctness or otherwise of the law laid down in Surya Dev Rai on the question discussed above."

39. The Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the beginning of consideration in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others (supra) observed thus:

"3. As already mentioned, the Bench of two Hon'ble Judges who heard the matter was not persuaded to follow the law laid down in Surya Dev Rai. It was observed that the judgment in Surya Dev Rai did not correctly appreciate the ratio laid down in the earlier nine-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra wherein this Court came to the conclusion that "Certiorari does not lie to quash the judgments of inferior courts of civil jurisdiction (para 62)."