Back
1949 Supreme(Gau) 18
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Lodge, Thadani, Ram Labhaya, JJ.
Inspector of Co.operative Societies, Jorhat Circle -Appellant
Versus
Golok Chandra Khaund -Respondent
First Appeal No. 117 of 1946
Decided On : 29-03-1949
Purnendu Chaudhuri, S.K.Ghose, G.Barua , Sj.Bhatesh Chandra Barui
The main legal point established in the judgment is that certificate cases under the Public Demands Recovery Act are not 'revenue cases' in the sense in which the expression was used in the 'Distribution of Powers Act'.
Headnote:
Public Demands Recovery Act - Jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunal - S. 53, Public Demands Recovery Act - The court held that the Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Collector under S. 53 of the Public Demands Recovery Act as the case was not a 'revenue case' in the ordinary meaning of the phrase. The court emphasized that the mere fact that the money in question was defined as a 'public demand' in the Public Demands Recovery Act did not mean that it was to be regarded as an arrear of revenue. The court also highlighted that the Act provides for the realization of dues which are described as 'public demands' and includes any interest chargeable thereon, and that the summary remedy provided by the Act for the recovery of public demands is in addition to and not in derogation of any other remedy available for the recovery of the demands under any other Act. The court further noted that the Act includes within its scope demands recoverable by persons who may not be officers of the Government, and that the certificate proceedings have not been described as revenue cases anywhere in the Act. The court concluded that certificate cases are not 'revenue cases' in the sense in which the expression was used in the 'Distribution of Powers Act'.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Balodev Khaund, was the Chairman of a Co-operative Village Society in Jorhat, called the Bongalo Pukhuri Gaolia Co-operative Bank, and was held liable for a sum of money by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. During the pendency of the suit, the Co-operative Bank went into liquidation, and the Liquidator issued a requisition for a certificate against the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit challenging the validity of the orders issued by the Certificate Officer, the Collector, and the Revenue Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Collector under S. 53 of the Public Demands Recovery Act as the case was not a 'revenue case' in the ordinary meaning of the phrase. The court emphasized that the Act provides for the realization of dues which are described as 'public demands' and includes any interest chargeable thereon, and that the summary remedy provided by the Act for the recovery of public demands is in addition to and not in derogation of any other remedy available for the recovery of the demands under any other Act. The court concluded that certificate cases are not 'revenue cases' in the sense in which the expression was used in the 'Distribution of Powers Act'.
Issues: The issues included whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, whether the suit was maintainable, whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether the order of contribution passed by the Liquidator and the Certificate Officer were legal and valid and enforceable, and whether the appellate order of the Collector was final and whether an appeal lay before the Revenue Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Collector under S. 53 of the Public Demands Recovery Act as the case was not a 'revenue case' in the ordinary meaning of the phrase. The court emphasized that the Act provides for the realization of dues which are described as 'public demands' and includes any interest chargeable thereon, and that the summary remedy provided by the Act for the recovery of public demands is in addition to and not in derogation of any other remedy available for the recovery of the demands under any other Act. The court concluded that certificate cases are not 'revenue cases' in the sense in which the expression was used in the 'Distribution of Powers Act'.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs.
[2] Balodev Khaund thereupon instituted the present suit praying for a declaration that the order of the certificate officer and the order of the Bevenue Tribunal were invalid, void and without jurisdiction, and praying further for an injunction restraining the liquidator from continuing the proceedings in the certificate case. The suit was decreed on contest.
[3] The liquidator has preferred this appeal. When the appeal came up for hearing, the only question argued was whether the Revenue Tribunal had jurisdiction under 8. 53, Public Demands Recovery Act, to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner. It was conceded that if the order of the Revenue Tribunal was without jurisdiction and to be treated as a nullity, then the Deputy Commissioner's order would be in force, and the suit was rightly decreed.
M The relevant portion of section 53, Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, reads: "The Commissioner may revise any order passed by a Collector under this Act." When the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, became the law in Assam, there were two Commissioners of Divisions. Subsequently the post of one Commissioner, viz. the Commissioner, Surma Valley and Hill Division was abolished and an Act (Assam Act I [l] of 1939) was passed transferring 'the appellate and revisional powers in revenue matters' to the Assam Revenue Tribunal. Section 2 of this Act reads:
"Subject to the next succeeding section, after the commencement of this Act, all powers and jurisdictions in Civil, Crim
