Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

35. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 07.11.1983 and subsequent order passed by the Board of Revenue on 26.08.1988 did not come in the way of the Additional Collector in making reference on 17.07.1993 and passing order on such reference on 25.04.2003 by the Board of Revenue, cannot be countenanced because the effect of order of rejection of application seeking reference, affirmed in appeal would be that on the same subject matter, proceedings of reference could not be re-initiated, nor it could be taken up for examination in exercise of power under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 by the Board of Revenue. The Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 07.11.1983 and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.08.1988 consistently held that no reference could be made and if anyone had any grievance against order dated 28.06.1980, the remedy was to file appeal or review. The order passed by the Board of Revenue on 26.08.1988 having not been challenged by the State or by anyone in any fora, the same attained finality and, therefore, it was not permissible under the statutory scheme of the Act of 1956 for any authority, revenue courts or revenue officers to re-look into the matter and start reference proceedings afresh as that [2022/RJJP/002790] (41 of 53) [SAW-179/2010] would amount to ignoring earlier orders and proceedings which the law does not permit. If such a course of action is permitted, no finality could be attached to any proceedings and it will be an unending process. Once the matter has been set at rest up to the highest revenue court, i.e., the Board of Revenue, no revenue officer subordinate to it may either on his own motion or on an application made by any party re-agitate settlement issue and make reference to the Board of Revenue. Existence of such a power under the scheme of Section 82 of the Act of 1956 would be against the public policy.