Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)Sree Rajah Mantripragada ... vs Sree Rajah Mantripragada Venkata ... on 19 March, 1945
The Mysore Division Bench agreed with this view of the Bombay High Court and differed with the contrary view adopted by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Venkataraghava Rao v. Venkata Hanumantha Rao, AIR 1945 Mad 336 (FB) where it was held that even the very limited control specified above cannot be exercised by a Civil Court over the work of the Collector in effecting a partition under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code. After adopting the above Bombay view, the learned Judges of the Mysore High Court felt that a clash of jurisdiction was bound to result if it is held that a partition effected by the Collector is subject to a right of appeal under S. 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It was observed in the judgment:
State Of Bombay vs Chhaganlal Gangaram Lavar on 15 July, 1954
Yet a decision of the Collector under S.37(2) is appealable and this is recognised by the Legislature itself. for the Legislature has provided in sub-section (3) of S. 37 that a suit instituted to set aside an order of the Collector passed under Sub-section (2) or for a relief inconsistent with such order must be filed within one year of the date of the order or, " if one or more appeals have been made against such order", then within one year of the order passed by the final appellate authority. Again S. 62 empowers the Collector to make a grant of alienated land and it is clear that the making of such a grant does not involve the type of work which is mentioned in the definition of revenue officer in S. 3(1). It was held by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Bombay v. Chhaganlal Gangaram, (FB) that a grant made by the Collector under S. 62 can be validly modified or cancelled in the exercise of revisional powers under S. 211. Another instance of the same type is found in the provisions of S. 187. That section provides inter alia that all sums declared by any Act or Regulation or by any contract with the Government to be liveable as an arrear of land revenue "shall be levied under the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and all the foregoing provisions of this chapter and all the forgoing provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, applicable there to." By virtue of this provision various types of sums, such as income-tax dues or dues payable under a contract with the Government , are recovered by adopting the provisions for the realisation of land revenue contained in Chapter XI of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Movable and Immovable properties are sold by the Collector for the realisation of such sums. The work involved is not the type of work which is specified in the definition of revenue officer in S. 3(1). Questions relating to the sale of properties under the provisions of S. 187, such as setting aside those sales or confirming them, have to be decided by the Collector, and appeals from the Collectors' order in this behalf are entertained s a matter of course by the Commissioner and decided on the merits.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 54 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ningappa Balappa And Ors. vs Abashkhan Gouskhan on 17 November, 1955
The last such reported case was Ningappa Balappa v. Abashkhan Gouskhan, . It was there held that after a decree for partition of lands assessed to revenue has been passed, the Court has nothing further to do with the decree, but that the Court is not entirely deprived of controlling the action taken by the Collector. The Court has a very limited control, and "it is to be exercised only if the Collector contravenes the decretal order or transgresses the law relating to partition or refuses to execute the decree."
The Amending Act, 1897
1