JAGABANDHU DAS Vs. BABAJI JENA
LAWS(ORI)-1953-4-3
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on April 08,1953

Jagabandhu Das Appellant
VERSUS
Babaji Jena Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PANIGRAHI, J. - (1.) THESE are three civil revision petitions filed under Section 15) Civil P. C., seeking to revise the orders passed in three cases by the Collector acting under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act (Orissa Act 3 of 1948). C. R. 301/1949 was presented on 12 -10 -49 against an order of the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, confirming the order passed by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Jaipur allowing the opposite party tenants to cultivate the disputed lands. C. R. 350/1949 was filed on 10 -12 -49 challenging the correctness of an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Puri, in appeal, against an order of the Sub -Deputy Collector, Khurdha, permitting the tenant -opposite parties to cultivate the lands and imposing a fine of Rs. 100/ - on the petitioners under Section 10 (1), Orissa Tenants Protection Act. The order imposing the fine was, however, set aside by the Additional District Magistrate, while the order directing the tenants to be put in possession was confirmed. C. R. 351/1949 was filed on 10 -12 -49 against the appellate order of the Additional District Magistrate, Puri, confirming the order of the Deputy Collector under Section 7, Orissa Tenants Protection Act, allowing the opposite parties to cultivate the disputed lands.
(2.) IN all those petitions the opposite parties are the tenants who have been put in possession of the disputed lands & the landlord -petitioners seek to revise these orders on the ground that they are either without jurisdiction or that the officers below have exceeded their jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. When the matter came up before me, sitting as a single Judge, I felt some difficulty as to whether Section 115, C. P. C. was applicable to the orders passed by a Collector under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, as obviously he is not a Court subordinate to this Court while so functioning. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, desired that these applications may be treated as petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution and heard on merits as involving an important question of law, namely, whether orders passed under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act can be regarded as final and conclusive so as to bar the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with them. I permitted learned counsel to treat these applications, as those made under Section 227 of the Constitution and they have now come up before us for disposal. A preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by learned counsel for the opposite parties. Section 11, Orissa Tenants Protection Act as it stood before it was amended in 1951, provided for an appeal against an order of the Collector to the prescribed superior revenue authority whose decision was made final; and the Section added, that it 'shall not be subject to any further appeal or revision'. The amended Section 11 roads as follows : 'Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under this Act may within thirty days from the date of such order, appeal to the prescribed superior Revenue Authority whose decision thereon shall be final subject to revision by the Board of Revenue. The decision so arrived at shall not be called in question in any Court.' The difference between the two provisions is that before the introduction of the amendment in 1951 (by Orissa Act 17 of 1951) there was only one appeal to the prescribed superior Revenue Authority, and the decision of that Authority was not liable to be questioned by way of further appeal or revision. The amendment however provides for a revision by the Board of Revenue whose decision is not liable to be called in question in any Court. The contention of Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel for the opposite parties, is that the orders passed by the appellate authority have become final and are not subject to any revision by this Court as the power of revision has been expressly taken away by the Legislature.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the case reported in - -'Arjun Rautara v. Krishna Chandra', AIR 1942 Pat 1 (FB) (A), and argued that as, in accordance with the provision of Section 13, Orissa Tenants Protection Act, that Act has to be read as a part of the Orissa Tenancy Act, the Collector deciding disputes under the former Act is liable to the jurisdiction of the High Court, as was held in the reported decision, notwithstanding the provision making the orders of the appellate authority final. We are unable to accede to this argument as we are satisfied that the Collector functioning under the Tenants Protection Act is not a 'Court' while he acts as a Court while functioning under the Orissa Tenancy Act. It was next pointed out that the Orissa Tenancy Act contains no provision similar to Section 11, Orissa Tenants Protection Act which expressly provides that the decision of the revenue authority shall not be called in. question in any Court. Section 204, Orissa Tenancy Act does not provide for appeals to the High Court except in restricted cases and the judgment of the Collector in respect of claims below Rs. 100/ - is stated to be final. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between the provisions in the two Acts and the case reported in - -'AIR 1942 Pat 1 (FB) (A)' is no authority for the position, token by the petitioners.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.