Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, JJ.
Girdhari S/o. Late Rewaram Lodhi - Appellant
Versus
Bhondu @ Barati S/o. Rewaram Lodhi & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 560 of 2022
Decided On : 24-07-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 151 – Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Section 31, 32 – Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction – Conferral of status of Courts on Board and Revenue Officers – Writ appeal – Plea of maintainability of writ petition – Inherent power of Revenue Courts – Held, Court observed that writ of certiorari under Article 226 through directed against orders of an inferior court would be distinct and separate from challenge to an order of an inferior court under Article 227 of Constitution – Supervisory jurisdiction comes into play in latter case and it is only when the scope and ambit of remedy sought for does not fall in purview of scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, jurisdiction of Court under Article 226 could be invoked – writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13/09/2022 passed by learned Single Judge in WP227 No. 588/2018 (Bhondu @ Barati & others v. Bhangin Bai & others) whereby order dated 06/06/2018 passed by the Board of Revenue has been set aside.
2. Ms. Archi Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2015 SCC Online Chh 1521 : AIR 2016 Chh 17, the writ petition preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 4 herein against the order passed by the Board of Revenue was actually filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such, against the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006 would be maintainable.
3. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4, would submit that since the writ petition preferred against the revisional order of Board of Revenue was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, by virtue of proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006, the instant writ appeal is expressly barred.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
5. Admittedly, respondents No. 1 to 4 filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court questioning the order dated 06/06/2018 passed by the Board of Revenue which has been granted by learned Single Judge. In order to consider the plea of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter, called as “the Code”) under which Board of Revenue is constituted.
6. Chapter II of the Code deals with Board of Revenue and Section 3 provides for constitution of Board of Revenue. It states that there shall be a Board of Revenue for the State of Chhattisgarh having a President and in addition to the President, the State Government may appoint as many members as it may deem fit. Section 4 provides for Principal Seat and other places of sittings of Board of Revenue and Section 7 provides for jurisdiction of the Board.
7. Chapter III of the Code deals with Revenue Officers, their classes and powers and Section 11 provides for a list of Revenue Officers. A careful perusal of the officers enumerated in Section 11 of the Code would show that Board of Revenue or its members are not Revenue Officers within the meaning of Section 11 of the Code.
8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 31 of the Land Revenue Code, which confers status of Courts upon the Board of Revenue and Revenue Officers, provides as under :-
9. The aforesaid provision confers status of Courts on the Revenue Board and the Revenue Officers stating that that the Revenue Officer or Board, while exercising power under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force to enquire into or to decide any question arising for determination between the State Government and any person or between parties to any proceedings, shall be a Revenue Court.
10. When a question arises as to whether an authority created by an Act is a Court as distinguished from quasi judicial Tribunal, what has to be decided is whether having regard to the provisions of the Act, it possesses all the attributes of a Court. In this connection, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain, AIR 1956 SC 66, Virinder Ku
The court ruled that appeals against orders made under Article 227 of the Constitution are not maintainable, emphasizing the jurisdictional distinction between Articles 226 and 227.
Judicial orders of civil courts are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, but revenue courts' orders can be challenged under Article 227.
High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226, while Article 227's jurisdiction is supervisory, allowing distinct legal remedies against tribunal orders.
Point of Law : The doctrine of precedent or Stare Decisis is a settled principle of law that a judgment, which has held the field for a long time, should not be unsettled. The doctrine of ' Stare Dec....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
