- (1.) THIS is a revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhalawar dated 26-11-62. The brief facts of the case are that this is a case of recovery under Public Demand Recovery Act and the petitioner has come up in revision before the Board of Revenue directly against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The learned counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection that under sec. 23 (a) of the Public Demand Recovery Act the petitioners ought to have preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and after exhausting the remedy of appeal they could have come up before the Board of Revenue in revision under sec. 23 (b) of the Public Demand Recovery Act.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he had filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority u/sec. 75 of the Land Revenue Act but the same was returned to him by the Revenue Appellate Authority saying that the appeal does not lie to him. He has conceded that he did not file any appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority under sec. 23 (a) of the Public Demand Recovery Act nor has he come against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority in which the Revenue Appellate Authority has observed that the appeal does not lie to Revenue Appellate Authority. He has however contended that he can come direct in revision to the Board of Revenue without preferring any appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and in support he has cited RRD 1962 page 206, RRD 1962 page 136, RRD 1963 page 140, RRD 1964 page 329 and AIR Supreme Court page 497. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The main point under dispute is whether the petitioner could come to the Board of Revenue directly in revision without availing the right of appeal given under sec. 23 (a) of the Public Demand Recovery Act. In RRD 1962 page 136 it has been held that the revising powers of the Board u/sec. 84 can be exercised even in cases connected with Settlement in which no appeal lies to the Board if the Officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him or have failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise thereof illegally or with material irregularity. This ruling does not help the petitioner because the question of jurisdiction is not involved in this case. Furthermore it has also been held in this ruling that the parties are not free to bye-pass the appellate authority in every case and bring a revision directly. In R. R. D. 1962 page 206 also the question of jurisdiction was involved in which it has been held that if the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or him by law, or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its, or his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit. So this ruling also does not help the petitioners, because no question of jurisdiction is involved in the present case. In RRD 1963 page 140 it has been held in para 6 at page 143 that the revision was entertained because the question of jurisdiction of the subordinate courts was involved. In RRD 1964 page 329 para 23 it has been held that where the orders of the subordinate courts suffer from lack of jurisdiction, it does not debar the supervisory Courts from interfering at an earlier stage. In AIR 1964 Supreme Court page 497 the facts of the case were that the trial court was in error in not dismissing the suits. The trial judge took the decision that the suits were not maintainable and yet kept the suit pending. Their lordships of the Supreme Court held that if the trial judge had dismissed the suits and passed decrees there would undoubtedly have been appeals and no revision would have lain. But since the order actually passed by trial court was not a decree or even an order made appealable, it involved a clear question of jurisdiction which was revisable. The above rulings would apply only if the following ingredients exists - (a) If any subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The above ingredients are missing in the present case. The only question here is that the petitioner has chosen not to prefer an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which is expressly provided under sec. 23 (a) of the Public Demand Recovery Act, and the petitioner has come up directly in revision before the Board of Revenue, which if entertained, would take away a valuable right of the parties granted under the Act specifically. The revision is therefore not maintainable and is rejected. .;