1. The Board of Revenue has rejected the petitioner's application for review of order passed by it on 12.8.2002 in a proceeding under the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Ceiling Act'). The Board of Revenue has taken a view that there is no provision for review of an order passed by an authority exercising the jurisdiction under the Ceiling Act, therefore, the review application is not maintainable.

2. The petitioner's counsel would refer to the judgment rendered by the M.P. High Court in the matter of Ramdin Hazarilal and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others {1979 LawSuit (MP) 202} to argue that even if there is no express power of review conferred on the ceiling authorities under the Ceiling Act, such power of review is to be read to have been conferred on the authority by virtue of Section 51 of the CG Land Revenue Code (for short 'the Code').

3. A short issue falling for consideration in this writ petition is – whether in the absence of any statutory prescription conferring power on the authorities under the Ceiling Act, the Board of Revenue could have exercised power to review its own order?

4. The Ceiling Act has been enacted to provide for the imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings, acquisition and disposal of surplus land and matter ancillary thereto, with a view to provide for a more equitable distribution of land. The Act authorizes the State Government to distribute surplus land vesting in the Government to needy persons and cooperative farming societies on payment of occupancy price. The word 'competent authority' under the Act has been defined under Section 2 (e), who are mainly the Revenue Officers of the rank of SDO/Deputy Collector, Collector/Additional Collector and Commissioner. The Act has made other provisions regarding fixation of ceiling area, determination of surplus land and acquisition thereof under Sections 6 to 21. These provisions prescribe the procedure to be followed by the competent authority to declare surplus land and distribution thereof after the surplus land would vest in the State Government. The procedure prescribed in these sections have not applied the provisions of the Code, which are required to be followed. Section 41 of the Ceiling Act provides for Appeals against every order of Revenue Officers or the competent authority under the Act whereas Section 42 provides for revision before the Board of Revenue or Commissioner. However, both the provisions do not mandate that while hearing Appeals or Revisions, as the case may be, the authority shall follow the procedure prescribed under the Code. Section 49 provides that the provisions of the Act and any rules made thereunder shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court or other authority. Thus, the entire Act does not make any provision conferring on any of the authorities i.e. either competent authority, appellate authority or the revisional authority the power to review its own order.

5. In the matter of Ramdin Hazarilal (Supra), the M.P. High Court has taken recourse to the provisions contained in Section 51 of the Code to hold that the authorities exercising power under the Ceiling Act being the revenue authorities, are competent to review their orders by virtue of Section 51 of the Code.

6. It appears, the M.P. High Court has not considered that the Ceiling Act is an independent statute which does not confer any power to review on the authorities dealing with the matters under the Act. Merely because the officers also happen to be the Revenue Officers, they do not become the authority dealing with any matter under the Code, otherwise whenever a Revenue Authority is conferred power under some special enactment in which there is no power to review, they would always be exercising such power of review by virtue of Section 51 of the Code. Such leg