Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Section mplrc in Tukojirao Puar vs The Board Of Revenue 2 Ors. on 6 January, 2020Matching Fragments
Shri A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Board of Revenue has failed to consider the well established principle of law that judicial or quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order unless the power of review is expressly conferred upon it by the statute. The Board of Revenue has exercised the power of review under the Ceiling Act in which there is no such provision for review like Section 51 of the MPLRC. Even if the Board of Revenue has borrowed the provision of Section 51 of MPLRC in order to exercise the power of review, such review is maintainable only against the order passed under the MPLRC subject to Section 44 and 50 of the MPLRC. There is limitation prescribed under the MPLRC for exercising the power of review. Assuming without admitting that the order under the Ceiling Act can be reviewed, but the scope of review is very limited. As per sub-section (2) of Section 51 of MPLRC, no order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the CPC. In the CPC, the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 and by virtue of sub-rule (1)(c), there has to be a discovery of new or important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed. Therefore, in view of such limited scope of review, the reviewing authority cannot examine the order of its predecessors as an appellate authority by re-assessing the evidence. The power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that earlier decision was erroneous on merits or a different view than the one taken in the earlier decision was possible. From the Explanation appended to Order 47 Rule 1, it is clear that subsequent change of judicial thinking is not a ground for review of a judgment which has already attained finality. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kishori Singh V/s. State of M.P. : AIR 2011 MP 27 has held that reasonable time for exercising suo motu power of review u/s. 50 of the MPLRC would be 180 days in case of irreparable loss to the petitioner or within a period of one year in case the petitioner is not put to irreparable loss. Hence, the Board of Revenue cannot be permitted to start review proceedings after lapse of four years when the order dated 19.5.2006 in appeal u/s. 41 of the Ceiling Act has attained finality. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment of this Court in the case of Biharilal V/s. State of M.P. : 2010 RN 124 in which it has been specifically held that the competent authority under the Repeal Act i.e. Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act is not vested with the power of review. The provisions of Section 51 of the MPLRC not attracted. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance over the judgment of this Court in the case of Chitra Rekha Bai @ Usha Devi V/s. Board of Revenue :
(2) The State Government may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose, by notification, confer upon, or entrust to the Board or any member of the Board additional power s or functions as signed to the State Government by or under any enactment for the time being in force."
By way of notification the Board of Revenue is empowered to hear the appeals so also the revisions under the Ceiling Act. Section 44 of the MPLRC provides remedy of appeal and appellate authorities and according to which, an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Code or the rules made thereunder, but the same is not there in Section 50 and 51 of the MPLRC under which the Board of Revenue exercises the power of revision and review. U/s. 50 of the MPLRC, the Board of Revenue may, at any time on its own motion or on an application made by any party or the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer may, at any time on his own motion, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to it. This power is not confined to the order passed under the MPLRC. Likewise in exercise of review also, u/s. 51 of the MPLRC, the Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit subject to certain conditions as per the proviso. The power of review is also not confined to the order passed under the MPLRC. It is not in dispute that the Ceiling Act as well as MPLRC both deals in the field of agricultural lands. The 'order' is defined in Section 56 of the MPLRC which means, in this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, expression "order" means the formal expression of the decision given by the Board or a Revenue Officer in respect of any matter in exercise of its/his powers under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force, as the case may be. Therefore, according to conjoint reading of Section 50, 51 and 56 of the MPLRC, the Board of Revenue is empowered to exercise the power of revision as well as power of review of any order passed under the MPLRC or any other enactment for the time being in force. Section 50, 51 and 56 of the MPLRC are reproduced below :
"56. Construction of order.-- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, expression "order" means the formal expression of the decision given by the Board or a Revenue Officer in respect of any matter in exercise of its/his powers under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force, as the case may be."
When any power and functions under any Central or State Act are conferred on the Board of Revenue by the State Government u/s. 7 of MPLRC, then its orders are covered by Section 51 of the MPLRC. When the Board of Revenue has passed the order u/s. 41 or 42 of Ceiling Act, that would be an order passed u/s. 56 of the MPLRC by virtue of power conferred u/s. 7 of the MPLRC by State Government.
Therefore, when the Board of Revenue has been given power of revision, then it can exercise of power of review u/s. 51 of the MPLRC because the revenue authority appointed under the MPLRC has been borrowed as competent authority under the Ceiling Act, hence, that authority or Board comes with all the powers given in the MPLRC.
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Govind Prasad Agarwal V/s. State of M.P. : 1969 MPLJ 704 while dealing in the case of Abolition Act has held that the Collector is competent u/s. 51 of the MPLRC to review an order passed by a Dy. Commissioner on 14.5.1957 u/s. 6(2) of the Abolition Act even assuming that no review is permissible under the Abolition Act. The Division Bench has considered the definition of 'order' in Section 56 of the MPLRC which include 'order' passed under the MPLRC or any other law and the provisions of Section 51 apply to all the orders passed by the revenue authorities.