Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5102 OF 2006

Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani Appellant(s)

versus

The State of Maharashtra and others Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

This appeal by special leave is directed against order

dated 13.7.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay

High Court. Dismissing Letter Patents Appeal preferred by the

appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge who

dismissed his writ petition and confirmed the orders passed by

the State Minister for Revenue in the proceeding R.T.S.3402/

Pra.kra.309/L-6 dated 18th October, 2002.

1

Page 2 2.It is the appellant’s case that his father Shri Nawoosingh

Panjumal Panjwani was a displaced person who migrated from

Pakistan to India during the period of partition and the

appellant’s family while in Pakistan was having agricultural

land over there admeasuring 4 acres 10 gunthas. After

migration, the family took shelter at Refugee Camp of Pimpri,

Pune in Maharashtra. In view of enactment of Displaced

Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by the

Union of India, the immovable properties left behind by

Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan were acquired and the

same was distributed to displaced persons as a “compensation

pool”. Accordingly, father of the appellant was allotted a land

admeasuring 2 acres 5 gunthas bearing Revenue Survey

Nos.351 and 118/2 situated at Village Lonavala, Taluka

Maval, District Pune. It has been pleaded by the appellant

that Survey No.118/1 and 118/2 are one and the same thing.

3.The facts in brief, as narrated in the impugned order, are

that Survey Nos.118, 328 and 351 of Lonavala were originally

2

Page 3 owned by one Haji Habib Tar Mohammed Janu. The said Haji

Habib Tar Mohammed Janu migrated to Pakistan and while

going to Pakistan, he sold his property to one Smt. Hajrabi

Haji Yusuf on 4.6.1949. However, this transaction was

cancelled by the Collector and Custodian of Evacuee Property

on 17.4.1949 as per Section 8(i) of the Evacuee Properties Act

and these lands were accordingly entered as Evacuee Property

by the Tahsildar, Maval on 26.10.1949. It appears that these

survey numbers were also given C.T.S.No. 129, 130-A, 130-B

and 133. It appears that in CTS No.129, 130-A, 130-B and

133, apart from vacant land there is a bungalow No.52- Habib

Villa. It appears that the Regional Settlement Commissioner

placed this property for auction through Government

Auctioner and one Gulabbai Desaipurchased the said property

in auction for a consideration of Rs.16,750/- on 17.5.1956

and, accordingly, sale certificate was issued by the Regional

Settlement Commissioner, Bombay on behalf of the

Government. In the said sale certificate the C.T.S. No 129,

3

Page 4 130-A, 130-B and 133 of Village Lonavala were mentioned.

The area of this CTS Nos. were as under:

129 - 55.16 sq.mts.

130A - 1651.1 sq.mts.

130B - 2934.02 sq.mts

133 - 3237.00 sq.mts

______________

Total 7897.21 sq.mts.

------------------

4.On the basis of the said sale certificate the mutation

Entry No.1836 was effected in the village record in favour of

Gulabai Desai, and thereby her name was entered in Survey

Nos.118/1B and 328 of village Lonavala to the extent of 29.30

Ares and 70 Ares respectively. Thereafter, Gulabai sold CTS

No.133 admeasuring 33 Gunthas on 24.4.1977 to Respondent

No.3 Genu Kadu. The said Gulabai also gifted her remaining

area from this Survey numbers to her grandson Anil Gajanan

Desai on 15.1.1979, who in turn has sold his properties to

Respondent no.2 - Prem Hasmatraj Lalwani in the year 1980.

4

Page 5 5. The Survey Nos.118/2 and 351, being Evacuee Properties,

were allotted to the Appellant in the year 1956. Later on, it

was found that the Appellant is in possession of more area

and, therefore, the said order was modified on 6.5.1982 and

excess area was granted to the Appellant on payment of

Rs.31,360/-, which Appellant had paid on 17.5.1982 in

Government Treasury and thereby the Deputy Collector and

Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Pune granted the excess

land to the Appellant, and thereafter the dispute started

between the parties.

6.In the impugned order, Division Bench made it clear that

since the dispute between the parties was in respect of the

area, as to what has been purchased in auction sale by

Gulabai Desai and what is the area allotted to the Appellant by

the orders of the Deputy Collector and Deputy Custodian of

Evacuee Properties, the Appellant requested the Bench not to

enter into the merits on this question in this LPA since the

parties may prosecute their remedies in the Civil Court for

5

Page 6 such adjudication, and therefore, that aspect was not

considered by the High Court. However, in the facts of the

conflicting claims, the Appellant made grievance to the Deputy

Collector and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties in

respect of the Mutation made in favour of the Respondent

Gulabai and other Respondents and, therefore, by order dated

18.9.1984 the Deputy Collector and Deputy Custodian of

Evacuee Properties, Pune, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Haveli Sub Division to take up the case in revision under

Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and pass

necessary orders. In view of these directions, the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Haveli, Sub Division, Pune, initiated

proceeding RTS Revision 14 of 1984 and by order dated

30.7.1985 cancelled the mutation Entry No.1836 which

comprises land admeasuring 7897 sq. yards and directed

necessary corrections in the record as per the observations

made in the order.

6

Page 7 7.It appears that the said order was taken in appeal by the

respondent and the matter was remanded to the Sub

Divisional Officer. After remand, the Sub Divisional Officer,

conducted inquiry and again passed an order on 29.10.1987

and confirmed the earlier order. Therefore, the RTS Appeal

No.128 of 1987 was preferred before the Collector, which was

disposed off by the Additional Collector on 13.7.1993. By the

said order, the Order of the third Sub-Divisional Officer was

maintained. However, further inquiry as directed by the SDO

was to be conducted. Since the mutation Entry No.1836 was

cancelled by above order, the Talathi gave effect to these

orders and effected the mutation Entry No.2176 and showed

the disputed properties in the name of the Collector and

Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties. The directions were

issued by the Collector to the Tahsildar to place the appellant

in possession of the property as per the orders of the Deputy

Collector and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties.

However, instead of giving effect to those orders, it appears

that the Revenue Officers at Tahsil level effected two

7

Page 8 mutations, viz, Mutation No.2377 and 2394. By mutation

entry No.2377 the name of respondent was again mutated in

the record and by the mutation Entry No.2394 the name of

Genu Kadu was mutated in the record. Since the Collector

noticed on complaint that the orders of the Collector has been

bypassed or surpassed by the Subordinate Revenue Officers,

the Collector by order dated 12.7.1999 directed the SDO to

take these mutations namely mutation Entry No.2377 and

2394 in revision and therefore the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Maval Division has taken these mutations in revision bearing

RTS Revision No.12 of 1999. The said revision was decided by

the Sub Divisional officer at Maval on 28.1.2000 and those

mutations were cancelled.

8.Being aggrieved by the order passed in the said revision,

Respondent No.2 Lalwani preferred RTS Appeal No.81 of 2000

and the Respondent No.3 Genu Kadu preferred RTS Appeal

No.114 of 2000. Both these RTS Appeals were heard by the

Additional Collector, Pune and by order dated 28.5.2001 the

8

Page 9 Addl. Collector, Pune dismissed the said appeals and

confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Maval.

Aggrieved by the said order of the Additional Collector,

Respondent No.2 preferred RTS Revision No.330 of 2001

under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966

before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. The

said revision was decided by the Additional Commissioner,

Pune by order dated 22.11.2001 and the said revision was

dismissed.

9. Respondent No.2 challenged this order of the Additional

Commissioner by filing the proceeding RTS

3402/Pra.kra.309/L-6 by way of second revision before the

Revenue Minister for State and the said proceeding was

decided by the Minister for State on 18.10.2002. The Revenue

Minister allowed the said proceeding and set aside the orders

passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Maval dated 28.1.2000,

order dated 28.5.2001 of Additional Collector, Pune and of

Additional Commissioner dated 22.11.2001, and thus,

9

Page 10 restored the position as reflected by the Mutation Entries

Nos.1836 and 2377 and 2394. Thus, all the entries in favour

of the Respondents were protected and maintained by the

order of the State Minister for Revenue.

10.Appellant challenged the order dated 19.10.2002 passed

by the Minister by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed

by learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.

Thereafter, the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal, which

was also dismissed by the Division Bench holding that when

the State Minister for Revenue entertained the matter, he was

possessed of jurisdiction under Section 257 of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and, therefore, the order

passed by him under the said authority is within his

jurisdiction, power and competence. The Division Bench

observed thus:

“…We record our finding that under Section 257 of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code more than one

revision is possible. Now coming to the facts of the

present case, the mutation Entry No.1836 was in fact

certified. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer has

taken the said mutation in revision in RTS Revision

10

Page 11 No.14 of 1984 and has set aside the mutation by order

dated 30.7.1985. There was appeal as against that

order which was remanded. It was again decided by

the Sub Divisional Officer on 29.10.1987 and the said

mutation was set aside. There was RTS Appeal No.128

of 1987 which was decided on 13.7.1993. In view of

these orders the mutation entry No.1836 was

cancelled and Mutation Entry No.2176 was effected

whereby the name of the Collector and the Deputy

Collector of the Evacuee Property was entered into 7 X

12 extracts. It is further found that when the orders of

the Collector directing to put the petitioner into

possession were not obeyed by the subordinate

Revenue Officers and the Revenue Officers effected the

mutation entry No.2377 in favour of the Respondent

Nos.3 Gulabai Desai and Mutation Entry No.2394 in

favour of the Respondent No.5 Genu Kadu and

thereafter for second time the special Divisional

Officer, Maval, has exercised the revisional powers

under Section 257 and initiated proceeding RTS

Revision 12 of 1999 in respect of the mutation entry

No.2377 and 2394. The RTS Revision 12/99 was

allowed on 28.1.2000 as against that two RTS appeals

namely, RTS Appeal No.81 of 2000 and RTS Appeal

No.114 of 2000 were preferred by the Respondent.

They were decided on 28.5.2001. As against that the

RTS Revision No.330 of 2001 was preferred. The same

was dismissed. As against that the RTS proceeding

bearing No.3402 /Pra.Kra.309/L-6 was preferred

before the Minister for State. All these proceedings will

show that twice the Sub-Divisional Officer has

exercised the revisional power under Section 257 at

the directions of the Collector, namely the RTS

Revision No.14 of 1984 and RTS Revision No.12 of

1999. It will further reveal that the appeals as against

the RTS Revision No.14 of 1984 was preferred by the

parties in view of the provisions of Section 247 and

249 sub-section 2. It will equally appear that when the

orders were passed in Revision Application No.12 of

1999 before the Sub Divisional Officer in exercise of

the powers under Section 257 the parties have

preferred two RTS appeals in view of the provisions of

Section 247 and 249 sub-section 2. Not only that,

11

Page 12 thereafter the RTS Revision Application No.330 of

2001 was also preferred before the Commissioner and

if the view is taken that the second revision is not

tenable then in that circumstances since the first

order passed in RTS Revision No.12 of 1999 is a

revisional order, this second revision before the

Commissioner being RTS Revision No.330 of 2001

would not have been tenable. However, said revision

RTS 330 of 2001 is tenable since the appeals as

provided under Section 247 and 249 intervene in

between the revisional orders passed by the

Sub-Divisional officer and the Commissioner. Thus, in

short, we find that the scheme under Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code is quite different scheme and it

permits more than one revision. Thus, viewed from

any angle, we find that the State Minister for Revenue

when he entertained the matter, State Minister for

revenue was possessed of jurisdiction under Section

257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and

therefore the order passed by him under the said

authority is within his jurisdiction, power and

competence.”

11.Hence, the present appeal by special leave.

12.Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellant, mainly attacked the revisional power exercised

by the Minister concerned in purported exercise of jurisdiction

under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In

the alternative, learned Senior counsel submitted that even if

it were to be admitted without prejudice that second revision

is maintainable, the Minister being the revisional authority

12

Page 13 should not have interfered with the findings recorded by all

the six Revenue Authorities. Referring the decision of the

Bombay High Court in the case of Sambappa vs. State of

Maharashtra [(2002) SCC on line, Bombay 1222], learned

counsel submitted that when the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner had

concurrently recorded finding in favour of the appellant by

observing that the revenue record is not in consonance with

the factual aspect and they have directed to correct the

revenue entries, in such a case, the second revisional

authority exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the said

application and interfering with the finding of fact. Section

257 makes it clear that a revisional authority has to consider

only the legality and propriety of the decision. Learned

counsel referring the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court

under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure tried to

impress us that when the power of revision is given to the

District Judge, then the High Court cannot entertain second

revision petition under Section 115 of the Code. Learned

13

Page 14 counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of

State of Kerala vs. K.M. Charia Abdulla & Co. , AIR 1965

SC 1585 and Hari Shankar vs. Rao Girdhari Lal

Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698.

13.Mr. Ahmadi, learned senior counsel further submitted

that a request was made to the High Court not to enter into

the merit of the case, and to confine itself to the question

whether a second revision was at all maintainable, in the light

of the ratio in Harishankar’s case (supra), (1962) Suppl.(1)

SCR 933, Hiralal Kapur vs. Prabhu Choudhury, (1988) 2

SCC 172 and Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad

Mirasaheb Kadri and others, (1987) 3 SCC 538. Learned

counsel also drew our attention to the decision of this Court in

Dharampal vs. Ramshri , (1993) 1 SCC 435 where this Court

held that a second revision to the High Court under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. was not permitted.

14

Page 15 14.Lastly, Mr. Ahmadi submitted that the second revision

would not lie under Section 257 of the Revenue Code since

Section 259 of the Code provides an opportunity to the State

Government to only correct any “Final Order” while exercising

power under the provisions of Section 257 i.e. with regard to

its legality and propriety.

15.Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondent–State, at the very outset

submitted that the appellant conceded before the High Court

not to decide the merit of the case. The only point raised

before the High Court was with regard to the maintainability of

second revision before the State Government under Section

257 of the Revenue Code. Learned counsel submitted that

Section 257 expressly confers power of revision on the State

Government which power is coupled with power of control and

superintendence. Learned counsel submitted that the

Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner is not equal in

a rank but subordinate to the State Government. Learned

15

Page 16 counsel submitted that the State Government is the supreme

revenue authority and existence of more than one appeal or

revision to an aggrieved party is not per se abhorrent to any

legal principle; depends upon the Statute. Mr. Srivastava then

contended that the High Court correctly analysed and

appreciated the scheme of the Code vis a vis judicial review in

revenue matters. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the

decision of this Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs. State

of Rajasthan and others , (2005) 2 SCC 334 for the

proposition that there can be a second revision under the

same provision of the Statute.

16.The only question that falls for consideration is as to

whether a second revision under Section 257 is maintainable

and that whether the State Government exceeds its

jurisdiction in entertaining the second revision?

16

Page 17 17.Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid question, we

would like to refer the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code 1966.

18.Section 2(31) defines the Revenue Officer as under:-

“2 (31)" revenue officer" means every officer of

any rank whatsoever appointed under any of the

provisions of this Code, and employed in or

about the business of the land revenue or of the

surveys, assessment, accounts, or records

connected therewith ;”

19.Chapter II deals with the Revenue Officers, their powers

and duties. Sections 5, 6 and 7 reads as under:-

“5. Chief Controlling authority in revenue

matters. The chief controlling authority in all

matters connected with the land revenue in his

division shall vest in the Commissioner, subject

to the superintendence, direction and control of

the State Government.

6.Revenue Officers in division. The State

Government shall appoint a Commissioner of

each division; and may appoint in a division an

Additional Commissioner and so many Assistant

Commissioners as may be expedient, to assist

the Commissioner:

Provided that, nothing in this section shall

preclude the appointment of the same officer as

Commissioner for two or more divisions.

7.Revenue officers in district. (1)The State

Government shall appoint a Collector for each

district (including the City of Bombay who shall

17

Page 18 be in charge of the revenue administration there

of ; and a Tahsildar for each taluka who shall be

the chief officer entrusted with the local revenue

administration of a taluka.

(2)The State Government may appoint one or

more Additional Collectors and in each district

(including the City of Bombay and so many

Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors (with

such designations such as "First", "Second",

Super numerary", etc. Assistants as may be

expressed in the order of their appointment), one

or more Naib-Tahsildars in a taluka, and one or

more Additional Tahsidars or Naib-Tahsildars

therein and such other persons (having such

designations) to assist the revenue officers as it

may deem expedient.

(3)Subject to the general orders of the State

Government, the Collector may place any

Assistant or Deputy Collector in charge of one

more sub-divisions of a district, or may himself

retain charge thereof. Such Assistant or Deputy

Collector may also be called a Sub-Divisional

Officer.

(4) The Collector may appoint to each district as

many persons as he thinks fit to be Circle

Officers and Circle Inspectors to be in charge of

a Circle, and one or more Talathis for a saza,

and one or more Kotwals or other village

servants for each village or group of villages, as

he may deem fit.”

20.Section 11 of the Code is worth to be quoted herein

below:-

“11.Subordination of officers.

(1)All revenue officers shall be subordinate to

the State Government.

(2)Unless the State Government directs

otherwise, all revenue officers in a division shall

be subordinate to the Commissioner, and all

18

Page 19 revenue Officers 2[in a district (including the

City of Bombay)] shall be subordinate to the

Collector.

3)Unless the State Government directs

otherwise, all other Revenue Officers Including

survey officers shall be subordinated, the one to

the other, in such order as the State

Government may direct.”

21.Sections 13 and 14 deal with the powers and duties of all

Revenue Officers.

22.From reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest

that the State Government makes appointment of the Revenue

Officers including the Commissioner and the Chief Controlling

Authorities in the revenue matters. Section 5 makes it clear

that the Chief Controlling Authority in all matters connected

with the land revenue in his Division shall vest with the

Commissioner, subject to superintendence, directions and

control of the State Government. Section 11 provides that all

Revenue Officers shall be subordinate to the State

Government. It is, therefore, clear that in revenue matters the

State Government is the Supreme Revenue Authority.

19

Page 20 23.In the present case, we noticed the scheme of the Code in

the matters of hearing and disposal of appeals, revision and

review. Section 247 deals with the appeal and appellate

authorities, which reads as under:-

“247.Appeal and appellate authorities.

(1)In the absence of any express provisions of

this Code, or of any law for the time being in

force to the contrary, an appeal shall lie from

any decision or order passed by a revenue or

survey officer specified in column 1 of the

Schedule E under this Code or any other law for

the time being in force to the officer specified in

column 2 of that Schedule whether or not such

decision or order may itself have been passed on

appeal from the decision of order of the officer

specified in column 1 of the said Schedule.

Provided that, in no case the number of appeals

shall exceed two.

(2)When on account of promotion of change of

designation, an appeal against any decision or

order lies under this section to the same officer

who has passed the decision or order appealed

against, the appeal shall lie to such other officer

competent to decide the appeal to whom it may

be transferred under the provisions of this

Code.”

24.Section 248 is also relevant which provides the forum of

appeal to the State Government. Similarly, Section 249 makes

provision of appeal against the review or revision.

20

Page 21 25.The schedule preferred to in Section 227 mentions the

Authorities before whom appeal would lie. The Schedule

appended to the Code is as follows:-

Schedule E

(See section 247)

REVENUE OFFICER APPELLATE AUTHORITY

1.1., All Officers in a Sub-Division,

sub-ordinate to the Sub-division

Off

Sub-divisional Officer or

such Assistant or Deputy

Collector as may be

specified by the Collector

in this behalf.

2.Sub-Divisional Officer, Assistant

or Deputy Collector.

Collector or such Assistant

or Deputy Collector who

may be invested with

powers of the Collector by

the State Government in

this behalf

3.Collector 1 (including the

Collector of Bombay) or

Assistant/Deputy Collector

invested with the appellate power

of the Collector.,

Divisional Commissioner.

4.A person exercising powers

conferred by section 2 (15).,

Such officer as may be

specified by the State

Government in this behalf.

Survey Officer Appellate Authority

1.District Inspector of Land

Records, Survey Tahsildar and

other Officer not above the rank

of District Inspector of Land

Records.,

Superintendent of Land

Records or such Officers of

equal ranks as may be

specified by the State

Government in this behalf.

2.Superintendent of Land Records

and other Officer of equal ranks.,.

Director of Land Records or

the Deputy Director of

Land Records, who may be

invested with the powers of

Director of Land Records

by the State Government in

this behalf.

21

Page 22 26.Section 257 is the relevant provision which deals with the

power of State Government and of certain revenue and survey

officers to call for and examine the records and proceedings of

Subordinate Officers. Section 257 reads as under:-

“257. Power of State Government and of

certain revenue and survey officers to call for

and examine records and proceedings of

subordinate officers.

(1) The State Government and any revenue of

survey officer, not inferior in rank to an

Assistant or Deputy Collector or a

Superintendent of Land Records, in their

respective departments, may call for and

examine the record of any inquiry or the

proceedings of any subordinate revenue or

survey officer, for the purpose of satisfying itself

or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality

or propriety of any decision or order passed, and

as to the regularity of the proceedings of such

officer.

(2) A Tahsildar, a Naib-Tahsildar, and a District

Inspector of Land Records may in the same

manner call for and examine the proceedings of

any officer subordinate to them in any matter in

which neither a formal nor a summary inquiry

has been held.

(3)If in any case, it shall appear to the State

Government, or any officer referred to in

sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) that any

decision or order or proceedings so called for

should be modified, annulled or reversed, it or

he may pass such order thereon as it or he

deems fit.

Provided that, the State Government or such

officer shall not vary or reverse any order

affecting any question of right between private

22

Page 23 persons without having to the parties interested

notice to appear and to be heard in support of

such order.

Provided further that, an Assistant of Deputy

Collector shall not himself pass such order in

any matter in which a formal inquiry has been

held, but shall submit the record with his

opinion to the Collector, who shall pall such

order thereon as he may deem fit.”

27.A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would show that

the provision uses the word ‘and’ for State Government but for

other Revenue officers it uses the word ‘or’. The language and

the words used in the said provision suggest that jurisdiction

of the State Government is concurrent with the jurisdiction of

other Revenue officers in deciding the revision. Hence, even if

one party goes to the Commissioner in revision, the State

Government can still be approached under Section 257 for

revision. The power of revision exercised by any Revenue

officer including the Commissioner is a proceeding by a

subordinate officer and the State Government can satisfy itself

as to the legality and propriety of any decision including the

order passed in revision by the Revenue officers.

23

Page 24 28.Further, in view of the fact that State Government itself

appoints the Revenue officers including the Commissioner

under the scheme of the Code and all Revenue officers are

subordinate to the State Government as per Section 11 of the

Act, and even the Chief Controlling Authority in all matters

connected with the land revenue in his Division is vested with

the Commissioner, they are subject to the superintendence,

direction and control of the State Government as provided

under Section 5 of the Code. The power of the State

Government has further been widened by Section 259 of the

Code, which reads as under:-

“259.Rules as to decisions or orders expressly made

final

Whenever in this Code, it is provided that a

decision or order shall be final or conclusive, such

provision shall mean that no appeal lies from any such

decision or order; but it shall be lawful to the State

Government alone to modify, annul or reverse any

such decision or order under the provision of Section

257.”

29.The aforesaid provision makes it clear that even if the

decision is considered to be final, the State Government’s

power to call for and examine the record and proceedings of

24

Page 25 subordinate officers is saved. In other words, the State

Government in exercise of its revisional as well as general

power of superintendence and control can call for any record

of proceedings and consider the legality and propriety of the

orders passed by the Revenue officers under Section 247 or

257 of the Code.

30.From perusal of the entire scheme of the Code including

Section 257, it is manifest that the revisional powers are not

only exercisable by the State Government but also by certain

other Revenue officers. There is nothing in the Code to

suggest that if these revisional powers are exercised by a

Revenue officer who has jurisdiction, it cannot be further

exercised by a superior Revenue officer or by the State

Government. A fair reading of Sections 257 and 259 suggests

that if revisional powers are exercised by a Revenue officer

having jurisdiction to do so, further revisional power can be

exercised by the superior officer or by the State Government.

25

Page 26 31.A similar question came for consideration before this

Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan

and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 334 under the Rajasthan

Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. In that Ac,t by Section 128

power was conferred upon the State Government and the

Registrar to call for and examine the records of any enquiry or

proceedings of any other matter, of any officer subordinate to

them, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the

legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by such

officer. It was submitted by the counsel that Section 128

related to two authorities i.e. the State Government and the

Registrar. In fact the two authorities are interchangeable. If

one authority exercises revisional power, the other authority

logically cannot have exercised such power. Hence, it was

argued that second revision was not maintainable. Rejecting

the submission this Court held:-

“20. Sub-section (2) of Section 124 provides that if the

decision or order is made by the Registrar, appeal lies

to the Government and if the decision or order is made

by any other person, or a cooperative society, the

appeal lies to the Registrar. Therefore, under Chapter

XIII a clear distinction is made between the State

26

Page 27 Government and the Registrar. The test is whether the

two authorities with concurrent revisional jurisdiction

are equal in rank. It is, therefore, not correct as

contended by learned counsel for the appellant that

the two authorities i.e. the State Government and the

Registrar are interchangeable. The power of the

Government and the Registrar in terms of Section 128

excludes matters which are covered by Section 125 i.e.

revision by the Tribunal.”

32.Considering the entire scheme of the Code, and the

provisions contained in Sections 257 and 259, we are of the

definite opinion that the Minister concerned of the State

Government can entertain second revision to satisfy the

legality and propriety of the order passed by the Revenue

Officer. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has

elaborately discussed the question and passed the impugned

order holding that Section 257 confers jurisdiction to the State

Government to entertain its revision against the order passed

by any Revenue Officer either in appeal or in revision. We find

no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court.

Hence, this appeal has no merit which is accordingly

dismissed.

27

Page 28 33.Before parting with the order, we must make it clear that

in view of the request made by the appellant before the High

Court not to enter into the merit of the case since the party

may prosecute their remedies in the Civil Court for

adjudication, we have not expressed any opinion with regard

to the merit of the case of the parties. The parties may

prosecute their remedies in Civil Court in accordance with law.

…………………………… .J.

(M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………… .J.

(C. Nagappan)

New Delhi

November 06, 2015

28