2008 Supreme(Raj) 1040

[Citation : RLW 2008(2) RJ 1160 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Ghan Shyam Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Dr. Kothari, J.)
HONBLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Ghan Shyam Singh
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 330 of 1996 & 2834 of 1997, decided on 24th September, 2008

Headnote:Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Sec. 221 — Extra-ordinary powers of Board of Revenue — Power of Superintendence and control over Revenue Courts — Held — Inherent and wide powers conferred u/Sec. 221 could not be invoked lightly and disposed of to set aside a validly granted decree in a suit by the competent Court which became final, without resort to appellate and revisional channel provided under the Act — The power is the residuary power and does not confer the Board of Revenue with power to set aside the decree granted by Assistant Collector in a light manner — Matter remanded to B.O.R. (Para 14 to 17)

       Petition allowed.

       Inherent and wide powers conferred under Section 221 of the Tenancy Act could not be lightly invoked and disposed of to set aside a validly granted decree in a suit by the competent Court of Additional Collector which became final, without resort to appellate and revisional channel provided under the Act. The power of superintendence and control over the Revenue Courts of course including over the Court of the Assistant Collector also, is the residuary power and does not confer the Board of Revenue with power to set aside the decree granted by the Assistant Collector in a light manner. Wider the power, greater is the circumspection required. (Para 14)

       This Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the Board of Revenue for decision afresh in accordance with law after going into the entire evidence once again and arrive at appropriate and reasoned finding of facts. The Board being final adjudicating authority under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as well as Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, is bound to assign reasons for any finding which it gives. Even though it is an order in exercise of powers under Section 221 of the Act, one cannot escape the fact that in the present case, an earlier application seeking reference against that very decree of the Additional Collector under Section 232 of the Act had failed. That should have given the finality to the decree and rights of the petitioner. However, since it also cannot be disputed and denied that the Board of Revenue has power of general superintendence under Section 221 of the Act, this Court without saying that Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order rests content with setting aside the impugned orders dtd.1.11.1994 and 30.5.1995 passed by the Single Bench and Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, Annex.21 and 23 respectively with a direction to the Board of the Revenue to decide the whole case again after going through the relevant documents, orders and evidence of contemporary period including the order of the Jagir resumption dtd.3.1.1958 and such other evidence which either side may even now present before it and also impact of relevant statutes and case laws and then decide the case again de novo. (Para 16)

        jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 221 & jktLo e.My dh vlk/kkj.k kfä;k¡ & jktLo U;k;ky;ksa ij v/kh{k.k o fu;U=.k dh kfä & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & /kkjk 221 ds rgr iznku dh xbZ foLr`r ,oa vUrfuZfgr kfä;ksa dk voyEcu gYds Qqyds rkSj ij ,oa l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk okn esa oS/k:i ls iznku dh xbZ fMØh] tks vfUre gks pqdh gks] dks vf/kfu;e esa micfU/kr vihyh; ;k iqujh{k.kh; iz.kkyh dk voyEcu fy;s fcuk vikLr djus gsrq fuLrkfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk & ;s kfä;k¡ vfofk"Vh; kfä;k¡ gksrh gS tks jktLo e.My dks lgk;d dysDVj }kjk iznku dh xbZ fMØh dks gYds QqYds <ad ls vikLr djus dh kfä iznku ugha djrh & ekeyk jktLo e.My dks izfrizsf"kr fd;kA ¼in la- 14 ls 17½

       ;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA

       .