SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(MP) 96

P.V.DIXIT, V.R.NEWASKAR, H.R.KRISHNAN
ANANDRAO LAXMANRAO MANDLOI – Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
REGHE, S.D.SANGHI, UPADHYAY

NEWASKAR, J.

( 1 ) THE question referred to the Full Bench is, whether it is competent for the Board of Revenue to revise an order passed by the Collector in exercise of his appellate powers under Section 28 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act. A Division Bench of this court in Bondar v. Ganpat, 1960 MP LJ 1278 had taken the view that notwithstanding the provision in Section 28 referred to above the Collector's decision is open to revision by the Board of Revenue. This question again came up for consideration before the Division Bench consisting of myself and Krishnan, J. It was contended before us that although in the absence of any statutory provision the principle laid down in the case of National Telephone Co. Ltd. v. Post Master general, (1913) A. C. 546 and approved by the Supreme Court in AIR 1953 SC 357, National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros. , Ltd. will apply. Section 34 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act clearly negatives such power of revision in the Board of Revenue. In the earlier case of 1960 MP LJ 1278 the exact impact of Section 84 (2) of the M. B. Abolition of Jagirs Act on this question did not appear to us to be fully appreciated and


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top