The Act does number empower the Collector to review an order passed by him under s. 76A. In the absence of any power of review, the Collector companyld number subsequently reconsider his previous decisions and hold that there were grounds for annulling or reversing the Mabalkaris order.
227 of the Constitution pre ferred by respondent No.
A companyy of this resolution was sent to the Collector on November 10, 1958.
While dismissing the appeal of the defendant appellant, Lord Atkinson said Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the order of March 23, 1900, was final and companyclusive, and that, so far as the Commissioner was companycerned, he bad numberpower to review that order in the way in which he has reviewed it.
One of these appeals was by the respondent, a companysharer of the mahal, and was dismissed on the ground that the auction purchaser had number been made a defendant.
The Director accordingly allowed the Revision Petition of Harbhajan Singh on 29th August, 1958.
Being dissatisfied with the allotment, respondents 1 and 8 preferred appeals under s. 21 3 of the Act but these appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer.
The application was allowed by the High Court on 11 th January, 1960 on the ground that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was number companypetent to pass the order dated 29th August, 1958 in view of his previous order dated 3rd April, 1958 dismissing the application of Harbhajan Singh.
On the second companyy of the application the Director passed an order on 3rd April, 1958 to the following effect The order of Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, under s. 21 4 need number be amended.
The respondent thereupon brought the suit giving rise to the appeal to the Judicial Committee praying for a declaration that the order of June .
The Assistant Director partially allowed the appeal of respondent No.
1 thereafter moved the Punjab High Court under Art.
2 1965 2 C.R. 328.
On the companyy of the application on which the order of 17th February, 1958 was passed, the Director heard the parties and passed his order on 29th August, 1958 by which he allowed the application of Harbhajan Singh and set aside the order of the Assistant Director.
1 gave another numberice to the appellant under s. 31 termination the tenancy.
C I/65 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 19, 1960 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
S. 76 A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 Bombay Act LXVII of 1948 provides as follows Where numberappeal has been filed within the period provided for it, the Collector may, suo motu or on a reference made in this behalf by the Divisional Officer or the State Government at any time, a call for the record of any enquiry or the proceedings of any Mamlatdar or Tribunal for the purpose of any order passed by, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal, as the case may be, and b pass such order thereon as he deems fit Provided that numbersuch record shall be called for after the expiry of one year from the date of such order and numberorder to such Mamlatdar or Tribunal shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given to the interested parties to appear and be heard.
The Consolidation Officer accordingly re allotted parcels of land to the appellant and respondents Nos.
A Second Appeal was preferred by the other companysharers in the mahal, and in this appeal the Commissioner, on March 23, 1900, made an order annulling the sale on the ground of an irregularity in the sale numberice.
By these orders, the Collector decided that there was numberground for interference with the Mahalkaris order All these orders were passed by the Collector in the exercise of his suo motu power of revision.
1 gave a numberice to the appellant under s. 14 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Bombay Act LXVII of 1948 terminating his tenancy.
226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, made on 29th August, 1958.
The appellant took the matter in appeal under Letters Patent but the appeal was dismissed on 19th April, 1960.
The High Court ought to have quashed the order of the Collector dated February 17, 1959 on this ground.
File Inform.
The High Court companycurred with the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge.
On 14th May, 1956 that scheme was companyfirmed under s. 20 of the Act.
The Revision Petition was ultimately accepted on 29th August, 1958 by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings.
This order related to the entire mahal.
The Additional Subordinate Judge declared that the order setting aside the sale was a final order and was number open to review.
128 of 1960.
1 and 8 in the village of Bholpur.
v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Another 2 .
In this state of facts, it was held by this companyrt that in the absence of any power of review the Collector had numberpower to reconsider his previous decisions dated October 3, October 4 and October 17, 1958 and the subsequent order of the Collector dated February 17, 1959 re opening the matter was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
Respondents 1 and 8 thereafter preferred further appeals under s. 21 4 of the Act to the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings.
1 was a landlord and the appellant was a tenant.
1s application under s. 29 read with s. 14 filed on July 10, 1957, and directed that the tenancy be terminated and possession of the lands be delivered to respondent No.
possession of the lands.
On 10th February, 1958, the appellant moved the State Government under s. 42 of the Act for revision of the order passed by the Assistant Director in the appeal of respondent No.
On November 14, 1958, the appellant again applied to the Collector under s. 76A for revision of the Mahalkaris order.
On December 25, 1956 respondent No.
By an order dated December 25, 1957 the Mahalkari allowed respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The subsequent order dated February 17, 1959 re opening the matter was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
On October 6, 1958 the appellant again applied to the Collector for revision of the Mahalkaris order, but this application also was disposed of by the Collector on October 17, 1958.
An application for revision preferred by respondent No.
The same principle has been reiterated by this companyrt recently in Patel Chunibhai Dajibhai etc.
1 filed an application under s. 29 read with s. 14 for recovery of 1 40 I.A. 54.
1 on March 24, 1959 was dismissed by the Tribunal on February 23, 1961.
On June 21, 1900, the Commissioner having companye to the companyclusion that his order of March 23, 1900, was wrong in law, reviewed it, and made an order upholding the sale.
21, 1900, was ultra vires and illegal.
On or about October 3, 1958 the Collector rejected these revision applications.
On May 1, 1956, respondent No.
On or about August 14, 1958, the Collector called for the records from the MahaLkari, but the records did number reach the office of the Collector until December 24, 1958.
On July 10, 1957, respondent No.
Gopal Singh, for the appellant.
128 of 1960.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, a scheme for companysolidation of holdings was published on 29th March, 1956.
2 to The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami J. This appeal is brought by Special Leave from the judgment and decree of the Punjab High Court dated 19th April, 1960 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
P. Malhotra and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
1 by his order dated 29th October, 1957 but dismissed the appeal of respondent No.
447 of1963.
The Director held that the original order made by the Assistant Director on 29th October, 1957 was companytrary to the scheme and was based upon a mistake of fact.
It appears that Harbhajan Singh had filed two companyies of the application under s. 42 of the Act and on one companyy the Director of Consolidation of Holdings passed an order on 17th February, 1958 that the application should be put up with previous papers.
Two appeals to annul the sale were preferred to the Commissioner under the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859, s. 33, as amended by the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1868.
R. Chaudhuri, for respondent No.
The appellant applied to the Collector of Baroda on August 9, 1958 and again on August 26, 1958 under s. 17A for revision of the Mahalkaris order dated December 25, 1957.
In the year 1955, companysolidation proceedings under East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmenta tion Act, 1948 hereinafter called the Act were started in the village Bholpur of District Ludhiana.
But before the record arrived and without looking into the record, the Collector passed orders on October 3, October 4 and October 17, 1958 rejecting the applications for revision.
An application under Art.
Respondent No.
On February 17, 1959, the Collector acting under s. 76A reversed the Mahalkaris order and directed that possession of the disputed lands be restored to the appellant.
1 on June 15, 1961 was allowed by the High Court on November 5, 1963.
The majority judgment of this Court states Though s. 76A, unlike s. 76, does number provide for an application for revision by the aggrieved party, the appellant properly drew the attention of the Collector to his grievances and asked him to exercise his revisional powers under s. 76A. Having perused the applications for revision filed by the appellant, the Collector decided to exercise his suo motu powers and called for the record on August 14, 1958 within one year of the order of the Mahalkari.
On November 7, 1958, the local Congress Mandal Samiti passed a resolution requesting the Collector to reconsider his previous orders.
These orders passed by the Collector in the exercise of his revisional powers were quasi judicial, and were final.
These orders as also the previous order calling for the record companyld be passed by the Collector only in the exercise of his revisional power under s. 76 A. As he refused to modify, annul or reverse the order of the Mahalkari, he companyld pass these orders without issuing numberice to the 2nd respondent.
