( 1 ) THIS is a reference by two learned Judges of this Court hearing a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking, inter alia a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated 31st October 1961 of the Board of Revenue rejecting the petitioner's application for a review of the decision dated 14th february 1959 of the Board of Revenue in an appeal under Section 29 of the madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act ). The Board of Revenue held that it had no power to review its decision given in an appeal under Section 29 of the Act. The question that the learned Judges of the Division bench have referred to us for decision is whether the Board of Revenue, has the power under the Act to review its decision given in an appeal preferred to the board of Revenue under Section 29 of the Act against an order of the Jagir commissioner.

( 2 ) AN appeal against a decision of the Jagir Commissioner lies to the Board of revenue under Section 29 (1) of the Act which runs as follows:

"29 (1) The Government or any person aggrieved by the decision of the jagir Commissioner under Section 4, 10,11, 13 or 14 may, within ninety days from the date of the communication of such decision to it or him, appeal to the Board of Revenue and the decision of the Board of revenue shall be final. "

The Act does not contain any provision giving to the Board of Revenue the power to review its decision or orders. It is now well settled that the power to review is not inherent in a Court and ,can only be exercised if it is permitted by statute. This has been made clear by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajaram v. Rani Jamit Kunwar Devi, 1901 M. P. L. J. 944. This proposition has been very recently laid down by the Supreme Court also in State of M. P. v. Balkishan Nathani 1963 M. P. L. J. 640: 1964-1 S. C. R. 793 where it has been held that there is no provision in the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (I of 1951) which authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to review an order made by him under Section 40 (3) of that Act and, therefore, the Nistar Officer has also no power to start proceedings to reopen the order made by the Deputy Commissioner OF to review it. Shri Phadke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not, and indeed could not, question the proposition that the power to review must be expressly given by statute. He, however, submitted that the Board's power to review its orders and decisions is to be found in Section 30 of the Act That provision is as follows: "30. Procedure:--The Jagir Commissioner, or any other officer conducting an enquiry under this Act, and the Board of Revenue and the collector hearing appeals from the orders of the Jagir Commissioner or the Tehsildar, as the case may be, shall follow the procedure applicable to proceedings under the Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007, so far as may be and shall have the same powers, in relation to proceedings before them as a revenue Officer has in relation to original or appellate proceedings, as the case may be, under the said Act. " it was argued that Section 30 of the Act did pot deal merely with the procedure that the Jagir Commissioner or any other officer conducting an enquiry under the act or the Board of Revenue and the Collector while exercising their appellate jurisdiction were required to follow that it also gave to these authorities the same powers which a revenue officer exercised in relation to original or appellate proceedings under the Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and tenancy Act, Samvat 2007; that Section 40 of the Tenancy Act gave to the Board and also to any Revenue Officer the power to review their own decisions; and that consequently Section 30 of the Act read with Section 40 of the Tenancy Act conferred on the Board of Revenue the power to review its decision given in an appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document