JUDGMENT - Tarkunde, J.

(1) These petitions raise a short question of law relating to the scope of the appellate and revisional powers exercisable under Ss. 203 and 211 respectively of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The petitioners on both the cases are parties to decrees passed by Civil courts for the partition of agricultural lands and other properties. The decrees were transferred as required by S. 54 of the Civil Procedure Code to the Collector for the partition of agricultural land. From the partition effected by the Collector the petitioners went in appeal to the Commissioner on the ground that the partition was inequitable. The Commissioner held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the appeals, since it was "clarified by Government that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals/application against the order of Collectors in the matter relating to execution of Civil Court decrees." The orders of the Commissioner are challenged in these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution on the ground that the Commissioner in rejecting the appeals failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law.

(2) Since the Commissioner gave no reasons for rejecting the appeals but merely referred to some clarification sent to him by the Government of Maharashtra, notices were issued in these petitions to the learned Government Pleader to appear and assist the Court. We have heard detailed arguments of the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Advocates who appeared for the parties.

(3) According to the petitioners, the decision of the Collector in effecting a partition of agricultural lands in pursuance of a decree passed by a Civil Court is appealable under S. 203 and revisable under S. 211 of the Land Revenue Code. Section 203 lays down;

"In the absence of any express provision of this Act, or of any law for the time being in force to the contrary an appeal shall lie from any decision or order passed by a revenue officer under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to that officers immediate superior, whether such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from a subordinate officers decision or order or not."

The first paragraph of S.211 says:

"The State Government and any revenue officer, not inferior in rank to an Assistant or Deputy Collector or a Superintendent of Survey, in their respective departments, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate revenue officer, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer."

It was common ground before us that if an appeal lies under Section 203 from the decision of the Collector in the matter of effecting a partition of agricultural lands, the decision would also be revisable under S. 211. We will, therefore examine the disputed question with reference to the terms of S. 203.

(4) It will be noticed that S. 203 provides for appeals from decision and orders passed under the Land Revenue Code as well as from decisions and order passed under any other law for the time being in force. When the Collector proceeds to partition revenue paying lands in pursuance of a Civil Courts decree, decisions or orders in that proceeding are passed under the powers conferred by S. 54 of the Civil Procedure Code and not by powers conferred by any provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It is clear from the terms of S. 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code that a decision or order of the Collector in such proceedings will be appealable to the Commissioner if the Collector is a revenue officer, if the Commissioner is his immediate superior, and if there is no express provision to the contrary either in the Bombay Land Revenue Code or any other law for the time being in force.

(5) The word "Collector" has been defined in S. 3(11) of the Bombay General Cla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document