Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Page 3207

1. The question referred to the larger Bench is: whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own order passed in the revision application under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948?

2. While making reference, the Single Judge noticed the judgment in the case of Anoopchand Nathmal Baid v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur and Ors. 1986 Mh.L.J., 520 wherein while considering the question whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short, `the Tribunal') has the power under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbha Region) Act, 1958 to review its own decision, the Single Judge held that under Section 315(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, `MLR Code'), the Tribunal could exercise its jurisdiction only in cases arising under the provisions of the enactment specified in Schedule `J' of the MLR Code and since the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbh Region) Act, 1958 is not referred to in the schedule, the powers which the Tribunal could exercise were only those conferred by the Tenancy Act and, thus, the power of review could not be exercised by the Tribunal in the cases arising under the Tenancy Act. In the reference order, another judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Genu Laxman Shinde v. Chandrakant Dagadu Kotulkar 1999(1) Mh. L.J., 235 has been noticed wherein it was held that the Tribunal possesses power to review its order passed under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Having noticed the inconsistency in the aforesaid two judgments, the Single Judge thought fit to have the said controversy resolved by the larger Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before us.

12. Section 4 and Section 7 of the Act of 1939 are identical to Section 9 and Section 17 of the Act of 1959 as well.

13. The interpretation put upon Sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1939 by M.C. Chagla, C.J. admits of no doubt. We fully agree with the aforenoted reasoning. In the case of Anoopchand, the judgment of the Division Bench in Raghunath was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

14. In so far as MLR Code is concerned, pertinently in Section 315 of the MLR Code, it is provided that in the cases arising under the provisions of the Page 3213 enactments specified in the schedule, interalia, an application for revision shall lie to the Tribunal from the order specified therein on the grounds set out in sub-section (2) thereof. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is specified in the Schedule-K with the amendments by virtue of Section 334. However, Section 76 of the Tenancy Act has not been affected by the amendment. Section 322 empowers the Tribunal to review its own decision or order on its own motion or on the application of any party interested. Since the Tenancy Act is specified in Schedule `K' appended to the MLR Code, the revision application preferred under Section 76 of the Tenancy Act shall also be covered by Section 315 of the MLR Code and, therefore, by virtue of Section 322, the tribunal acquires the power to review its own decision or order.

15. Even if it be assumed that the revision application filed under Section 76 of the Tenancy Act is an independent revisional proceeding to which Section 315 of the MLR Code is not applicable, yet, in so far as power of review given to the Tribunal under Section 322 of the MLR Code is concerned, such power is given to the Tribunal generally and is not limited to the exercise of jurisdiction enumerated in Section 315 but that power has been conferred on the Tribunal as such and the same could be exercised as and when the case for reviewing its decision or order is made out under Section 322. The power of review has been conferred on the Tribunal by express provision contained in Section 322 of the MLR Code. Such power of review is given to the Tribunal as such whether it exercises the jurisdiction under Section 315 of the MLR Code or any other law.

Page 3214

17. It needs no elaboration that power of review is not inherent in the court and such power has to be vested in the court or quasi-judicial authority by express provision or by necessary implication. As noticed above, Section 322 of the MLR Code confers the express power of review to the Tribunal.

18. In what we have discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that the power of review conferred upon the Tribunal under Section 322, is not limited to the exercise of functions enumerated in Section 315 but that power is attached to the Tribunal as such and it could always be exercised by the Tribunal whenever the case for review is made out. Such power includes review of the order passed under Section 76 of the Tenancy Act.