S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - (1.) Suit for partition filed by the respondents in respect of Plot No. 64/1/A and other properties was decreed by the trial Court in 1969 which decree was upheld by the first appellate Court and also by the High Court. Since one of the properties in respect of which partition decree was passed was assessed to land revenue payable to the State Govt., the trial Court referred the matter to the Collector under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure for partition. The Collector partitioned the properties by his order dated 1-6-1976. The order of the Collector was challenged by the Appellant before the Deputy Secretary under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. This Revision was allowed on 2-7-1977 and the Deputy Secretary remanded the matter to the Collector. The order of the Deputy Secretary was challenged by the Respondents in Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1978 on the ground that the Deputy Secretary had no jurisdiction to consider the propriety of the order passed by the Collector under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was decreed on 22-12-1981. The appeal preferred by the appellant against this decree was dismissed by the District Judge on 20-8-1983. The second appeal thereafter filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed by the High Court on 17-8-1984 on the ground that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. The matter is now before us.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Collector was a Revenue Officer and therefore he was amenable to the jurisdiction of the State Government under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. He placed reliance upon Sections 203 and 211, which are reproduced below: "203. In the absence of any express provision of this Act, 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 officer under this Act or any other law for the time being in force to that officer's immediate superior, whether such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from a subordinate officer's decision or order or not. 211. The State Government and any revenue officer, not inferior in rank to an Assistant or Deputy Collector or a Superintendent of Survey, in their respective departments, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate revenue 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. The following officers 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, namely * * * a Mamlatdar, a Mahalkari, and Assistant Superintendent of Survey and an Assistant Settlement Officer. If in any case, it shall appear to the State Government or to such Officer aforesaid 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 an Assistant or 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 pass such order thereon as he may deem fit."
(3.) It is contended that since it is specifically provided under Section 203 that any order passed by a Revenue Officer under this Act (or any other law for the time being in force) would be appealable to that officer's immediate superior, the order passed by the Collector could be legally challenged under the Code to the superior officer. Under Section 211 the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government could also be invoked.;