M. HIDAYATULLAH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS case was first before one of us (Tare, J.) who referred the case to a division Bench, but in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mahadeo raoji v. Anant Ganesh, AIR 1957 Bom 147 (PB) (A), I considered it expedient to refer the case to a Full Bench. The point involved in the case has had a long history and it is proper to decide it finally.

( 2 ) THE Tacts of the case appear sufficiently from the order of reference and need not be restated. In Wasudeo Bamchandra Patil v. Nihalchand Chandanmal, 1942 nag LJ 34 (B), Greenfield, Revenue Adviser held that orders passed by the Deputy commissioner under Section 13 of the Relief of Indebtedness Act were appealable and revisable and that the Deputy Commissioner acted as a Revenue Officer and not as a persona designata. In Ishwari Prasad v. Shankarlal, 1942 Nag LJ 420 (C), the same Revenue Adviser held that an order of the Deputy Commissioner granting p. certificate under section 13 (3) of the Act was not appealable. In Dayaldas Girdusa v. Ramrao mukundrao, 1942 Nag LJ 68 (D), Binney, Financial Commissioner took the latter view of an appeal under Section 13-A of the Central Provinces Debt Conciliation. Act (1933) and again in Dhekal v. Kisan, 1943 Nag LJ 119 (E ). In Amrit Nagoji v. Mohanlal, 1944 Nag LJ 537 (P), P. S. Rau, Financial Commissioner referred the following question for the opinion of a Bench : "is a Deputy Commissioner acting under Section 13 (3) of the Debt conciliation Act, 1933 and under Sections 13 (3) and 15 of the Relief of indebtedness Act, 1939 a persona designata, against whose order no revision lies or a revenue officer under Section 9 of the Land Revenue act whose orders are revisable under Section 39 ibid?" greenfield, R. A. and P. S. Rau, P. C. held that the Deputy Commissioner acts as a revenue officer and not as a persona designata.

( 3 ) THE same question then came before the High Court in another case and I held in Netram v. Laxman, ILR (1948) Nag 142: (AIR 1948 Nag 409) (G), that in passing an order under Section 13 (3) of the Central Provinces and Berar Relief of indebtedness Act the Deputy Commissioner acts as a revenue officer and not as a persona designata, and that as a revenue officer the Deputy Commissioner can review his own order.

( 4 ) IN Raghunathsingh v. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 Nag 342 (IT), the question was considered by Sinha, C. J. , (as he then was) and mudholkar, J. Their Lordships held that the Deputy Commissioner has numerous functions and sometimes acts as a revenue officer and sometimes merely as an agent of the State Government and sometimes in other capacities. The Bench stated that Section 9 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act distinguished between the functions of the Deputy Commissioner under that Act and any other enactment and held that the powers of appeal, revision, etc. , cannot be said to be available against the latter class of functions. The conclusions of the learned judges can be stated in their own words: "5, Section 13 (3), Central Provinces and Berar Debt Conciliation Act, is not worded in the same terms as Section 13 (3), Relief of Indebtedness act, and it would seem that this distinction has not been kept in mind while deciding that case. The learned members of the Tribunal held that the Legislature intended that the Deputy Commissioner while deciding cases under Section 13, Relief of Indebtedness Act should act as a revenue Officer and that when he acts as a Revenue Officer his orders are subject to appeals and revisions as contained in the provisions under the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act or the Berar Land Revenue code, as the case may be. The distinction between Sections 13 (1) and 13 (2) on the one hand and section 13 (3) on the other on which emphasis has been placed by the board of Revenue has not been borne in mind at all by the tribunal. In our opinion, that distinction is substantial and because of this distinction it must be held t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document