Saukhan vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 31 July, 1990
Therefore, since the Board of Revenue has a power of superintendence, as such the argument that the Collector is not competent to make a Reference Under Section 232 is of hardly any relevance. Once the Board of Revenue is seized of the matter and it is satisfied that certain illegality has been committed particularly by sub-ordinate Revenue Court, then exercise of its revisions jurisdiction, the Board of Revenue can interfere. But a word of caution has, been added by their Lordships that this power is to be exercised sparingly and in extra-ordinary circumstances. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel regarding the competency of the Collector to make a Reference Under Section 232 of the Act and the question of assent of the President of the amen ment in Section 232 of the Act is concerned, is not required to be examined in the present case. Suffice it to say that the Board of Revenue has a Revisional jurisdiction and, if it is satisfied that the order/decree passed by the subordinate Revenue Court is illegal, without jurisdiction or prima facie unjust, than it is always open for the Board of Revenue to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned Counsel regarding Collector's incompetency and its challenge to the amendment of Section 232 of the Act has hardly any relevance. Our attention was also invited to D B. judgment of this Court given in Karan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1978 WLN (Vol. II) 317, but in this case, scope of Section 221 of the Act was not considered. A distinction was made between decree and order and it was pointed out that expression 'decree' does not find mention in Section 232 of the Act. Therefore, Collector cannot make reference. But the attention of Hon'ble Court was not invited to Section 221 of the Act. How ever this controversy now does not survive in view of amendment of Section 232 of the Act where by 'decree' has been added.