Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 27932
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA, J
SITARAM S/O SHRI GOPAL – Appellant
Versus
BHONRILAL S/O KAJOD ADOPTED S/O LATE SHRI GASHI – Respondent
SAW / 410 / 2023
For Appellants :Mr. Rajendra Prasad Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Harshita Thakral Advocate, Ms. Dhriti Laddha Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Pareek Advocate; Mr. N.K. Maloo Senior Advocate & Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr. Pratyush Sharma Advocate. Mr. Saket Pareek Advocate Mr. Aditya Pareek Advocate Mr. Mahesh Gupta Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj Advocate. For Respondents:Mr. R.K. Agarwal Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Adhiraj Modi Advocate Mr. Anand Sharma Amicus Curiae Mr. Ashish Sharma Advocate.
Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226; only revenue courts' orders can be challenged under Article 226, affirming the distinction between civil and revenue courts.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 84 - Maintainability of intra-court appeals - Appeals against orders of the Board of Revenue, which exercises judicial functions akin to civil courts, are maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Board of Revenue is not a civil court but a special tribunal with limited jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 12, 84)
(B) Jurisdiction - Distinction between civil courts and revenue courts - Revenue courts, while exercising judicial functions, do not possess plenary jurisdiction like civil courts and are governed by specific revenue laws. (Paras 60, 79)
Facts of the case:
Nine appeals were filed against orders passed by the Board of Revenue in revenue matters, challenging the maintainability of intra-court appeals based on the nature of the Board's jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 9)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the orders of the Board of Revenue are subject to intra-court appeals as they are not civil courts, and thus, the appeals are maintainable. (Paras 84)
Issues: The main issue was whether the orders of the Board of Revenue could be challenged under Article 226 or were limited to Article 227. (Paras 84)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Board of Revenue, while exercising its functions, does not act as a civil court, and thus, its orders can be challenged under Article 226. (Paras 84)
Result: Appeals are maintainable and will be heard on merits.
Order
REPORTABLE
25/10/2024
(Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice):
1. In these nine appeals, which have been listed for analogous hearing, objection to maintainability of these intra-court appeals, has been raised on common grounds.
2. All these appeals arise out of orders passed in writ petitions by the learned Single Judges. Insofar as D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 756/2022, 781/2021, 785/2022, 977/2022, 996/2022, 999/2022 and 222/2023 are concerned, they arise out of orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9521/2013, 11851/2013, 11852/2013 and 19076/2022 filed before the learned Single Judge assailing orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board of Revenue’) in exercise of its power of revision provided under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’).
Insofar as D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 410/2023 and 411/2023 are concerned, they have been filed assailing common order dated 17.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 15556/2016 and 10140/2018 wherein order of dismissal of appeal by the Board of Revenue as well as order of dismissal of review petition were challenged.
Submissions on behalf of respondents :
3. Mr. R.K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised an objection with regard to maintainability of these intra-court appeals on the submission that various revenue proceedings were brought before the Board of Revenue in suits seeking declaration of various rights and the revenue courts while deciding the suits exercised judicial function, which is akin to judicial function of the civil courts, in respect of those matters where the jurisdiction of civil courts is expressly barred under the provisions of the Act of 1956 and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’). The decrees and orders passed by the revenue courts at the first instance, in exercise of original jurisdiction were taken in appeal before the revenue appellate authorities and finally to highest court of appeal and/or revision being the Board of Revenue in the hierarchy of revenue courts. Therefore, it is contended, the Board of Revenue exercised jurisdiction as appellate and/or revisional authority to examine the matters arising out of revenue suits and thereby exercised judicial function as ‘Court’ for all legal and practical purposes. Hence, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue exercising such powers and functions as highest revenue court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction, but are subject only to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Board of Revenue, being a revenue court, as defined under Section 5(35) of the Act of 1955 and even though, strictly speaking, it is not the civil court but definitely has trappings of Court exercising special jurisdiction in respect of the matters provided under the Act of 1955 and the Act of 1956 as the jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly barred. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the provisions contained in Section 5 sub- section 34-A, Section 5 sub-section (35); Section 53; Sections 88 to 92 and Section 208 of the Act of 1955 to submit that the revenue courts, while exercising jurisdiction in the matter of revenue suits, function as judicial court and, therefore, decrees as also orders which are ultimately passed by the revenue courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others ,(2015) 5 SCC 423 In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ethiopian Airlines Vs. Ganesh Narain Saboo ,(2011) 8 SCC 539 Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. Universal Exports & Another ,(2011) 10 SCC 316 and Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natu
