Honble SHETHNA, J.–The State of Rajasthan has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 5.10.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 18.3.1995 passed by the D.I.G. (Stamp) rejecting the reference made under section 47 of the Stamp Act before him.

(2). The learned Addl. Government Advocate Shri Upadhyaya submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed grave error in rejecting the revision petition filed by the State Government on the technical ground of limitation only. He submitted that the Government is put to the loss of about Rs.7 lacs in rejection of revision in this manner. In support of his submission he has relied upon the Supre- me Court judgment reported in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantang and another V/s Mst. Katiji and ors. (1).

(3). As against that, the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Purohit vehemently submitted that the Board of Revenue rightly rejected the revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan on the ground of limitation, as no cause much less sufficient cause was shown by the State Government in filing the revision petition late. He submitted that though the impugned order rejecting reference was passed by the D.I.G. (Stamp) on 18.3.1995, the revision petition, which was required to be filed within 90 days, was not filed and the same was filed very late. He submitted that initially the State Government had accepted that order of rejection of the reference passed by the D.I.G. (Stamp) on 18.3.1995. However, later on, it changed its mind and on 11.8.1995, the State Government appointed the Officer Incharge to prosecute the matter further and it was only thereafter on 17.8.1995, the Officer Incharge applied for the certified copy of the impugned order dated 18.3.1995 passed by the D.I.G. (Stamp) rejecting the reference made by the State Government. Thus, admittedly, the certified copy of the impugned order passed by the D.I.G. (Stamp) was not applied within the period of limitation of 90 days. He, therefore, submitted that the Board of Revenue has not committed any error much less error of law or jurisdictional error in rejecting the revision petition solely on the ground of limitation, which requires interference by the hands of this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that though this petition is labelled as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of the same is very narrow and limited and as held by the Apex Court in Mohd.Yunus V/s Mohd. Mustaquim and Ors. (2), even error of law commit- ted by the courts below cannot be corrected by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in (i) Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and anr vs. State of Gujarat (3) and (ii) P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and anr (4). In both the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court refused to condone the delay, where the State Government was initially not interested in filing the matter and not applied for certified copy of the order by allowing the period of limitation to expire.

(4). It is true that in case of Katiji (supra), the Apex Court held that the cases should not be thrown out on the technical ground like limitation etc. and there should be substantial justice and not technical justice. However, each case has to be decided on its own facts.

(5). In the cases of P.K. Ramachandran and Ajit Singh Thakur Singh (supra), the Apex Court has clearly held that if the State Government allows the period of limitation to expire and did not even apply for the certified copy of the order, which was required to be challenged, then, in such case, the delay can not be condoned.

(6). Coming to the facts of this cases, as stated ea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document