The power to review an order under the Restoration of Lands to Schedule Tribes Act, 1974 flows from section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Headnote:
RESTORATION OF LANDS TO SCHEDULE TRIBES ACT, 1974 - SECTION 3, 6, 7, 9, 247, 258 - REVIEW OF ORDER - POWER OF COLLECTOR - FINALITY OF ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
Fact of the Case:

A non-tribal transferee challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal affirming the order of the Additional Tahsildar, Sakoli, reviewing his own earlier order and restoring the entire land of one-acre to the respondent No. 2 who was a tribal.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Additional Tahsildar had the power to review his own order under section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and that the decision of the Additional Tahsildar could not be challenged on this ground.
Issues: Whether the Additional Tahsildar had the power to review his own order under the Restoration of Lands to Schedule Tribes Act, 1974.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector does not cease to be a revenue officer while exercising the powers conferred by the Restoration Act, and since there is no provision to the contrary in the Restoration Act, by virtue of the provisions of section 247(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the powers, which have been conferred by Chapter XIII would be available to the Collector, and this would include also the power to review his own orders which would flow from section 258 thereof.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and held that there was no merit in the writ petition.

JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---This petition by the non-tribal transferee is directed against the order dated 30th June, 1985, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal affirming the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Sakoli, on 15th October, 1983, reviewing his own earlier order, dated 23rd September, 1980 by which possession of only half of the land was restored to the respondent No. 2 and directed, on review, to restore the entire land of one-acre to the respondent No. 2 who was a tribal as he belonged to the Gond tribe.

2. Though several challenges were raised to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the only point urged by Shri Badiye the learned Counsel for the petitioners, was that once having passed the order, dated 23rd September, 1980, the Additional Tahsildar, Sakoli, could not have reviewed his own order and passed the order dated 15th October, 1983, restoring the whole of the land, which had transferred by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner by the sale-deed dated 21st April, 1970.

3. It is common ground that in the instant case the Additional Tahsildar was exercising the powers of the Collector and, therefore, he could pass the order under section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Schedule Tribes Act, 1974 (the Restoration Act' for short). According to Shri Badiye, the Restoration Act enacts a complete Code for the purposes of filling appeals or revisions and prescribes the forums to which the appeals or revisions would lie, while section 9 thereof brings finality to the decision or order of Collector and decision of Revenue Tribunal Since none of the provisions of the Restoration Act expressly confers right of review on any of the authorities, it was not permissible to Additional Tahsildar to review his own order, dated 23rd September, 1980, granting restoration of only half of the land and, later on 15th October, 1983 and by reviewing the earlier order to restore the whole of the land to the respondent No. 2.

4. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel, it is necessary to consider some material provisions of the Restoration Act. Under section 2(1)(a), "Code" means the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, while under Clause (b), 'Collector" includes an Additional Collector, and an Assistant or Deputy Collector exercising the powers or discharging the duties of a Collector under the Code and also any other officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar especially empowered by the State Government to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Collector under this Act. A little digression is necessary to understand how the Additional Tahsildar came to exercise the powers of Collector in the present case. Under section 13 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, by the amending Act (Maharashtra Act No. 47 of 1981) an explanation was added to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 13. The amended section 13(1) reads as under :-

"13(1) The revenue officers of and above the rank of a Tahsildar (not being an Additional Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Additional Collector or Additional Tahsildar) shall exercise the powers and discharge the duties and functions conferred and imposed on them respectfully under this Code or under any law for the time being in force, and so far is consistent there with, all such other powers, duties and functions of appeal, superintendence and control within their respective jurisdiction, and over the officers subordinate to them as may from time to time be prescribed by the State Government:

Provided that, the Collector may also exercise throughout his district all the powers and discharge all the duties and functions conferred or imposed on the Assistant or Deputy Collector under this Code or under any law for the time being in force and a Tahsildar shall also exercise such powers as may be delegated to him by the Collector under the general or special orders of the State Government.

Explanation.:---In this proviso, the e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis