AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U.L. Bhat, C.J.—This is an application filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Annexure-A/4 order dated 4.4.75 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur rejecting an application seeking review of its earlier judgment at Annexure-A/3 in T.R. Revision Case No. 6/73.
The dispute between the 3rd Respondent and the present Petitioner reached the Deputy Commissioner, Central, Manipur under the provisions of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) and the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1961 (for short, The Rules) Annexure-A/2 is the order of the Deputy Commissioner 3rd Respondent challenged this order before the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur which allowed the revision under Annexure-A/3 order. Thereupon the Respondent in the revision case, who is the present Petitioner, filed an application for review. That was rejected on the ground that Section 46 of the Act confers powers of review only on Revenue Officers and since the Tribunal is not a Revenue Officer, it has no power of review.
In this and several other writ petitions, the common question regarding the status of the Tribunal and the subordination of Revenue Officers to the Tribunal arose for consideration and the question was referred to Full Bench. A Full Bench constituted for the purpose held that the Tribunal is not a Revenue Officer, but, a Revenue Court under the Act and all the Revenue Officers enumerated in Section 4 of the Act are judicially subordinate to the Tribunal for the purpose of Section 95 of the Act and the Tribunal can exercise powers or revision in respect of any order passed by any Revenue Officer as such.
Tribunal is defined in Section 2(VV) of the Act as any officer appointed by the State Govt. to be the Tribunal for the purpose of the Act and any other law for the time being in force in the State of Manipur. The Tribunal whose order is now in question is a Tribunal as defined in the Act. Section 4 enumerates Revenue Officers of different status, ranging from Revenue Commissioner to Village Officer and includes Deputy Commissioner. Section 93 provide for appeal to the Tribunal against any original order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Section 93(2) provides for 2nd appeal to the Tribunal against an order passed under Clause (b) or (e) of Section 93(1). Section 95 confers on the Tribunal power, either on its own motion or on the application of any party to call for records of any proceedings before any Revenue Officer Subordinate to him and to pass such order as the Tribunal deems fit. The order passed by the Tribunal in revision setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner is one passed in exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 95 of the Act.
Section 96 confers power of review only on Revenue Officers discharging function under the Act. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court has laid down that the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under the Act is not a Revenue Officer but a Revenue Court. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot derive the power of review under, Section 96 of the Act. It is trite law that power of review is invariably a creature of statute and if no such power is granted, the court or the Tribunal cannot exercise power of review. The Act does not, in specific terms, confer any power of review on the Tribunal.
It is necessary to advert to Rule 135 and paragraph 62 of Schedule 3 of the Rules. Rule 135 read as:
Subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules the CPC 1908, shall, as far as may be, apply to all or any of the proceedings taken by any revenue court under the Act.
The rule makes it clear that subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the provisions of the CPC shall, as far as may be, apply to all or any of the proceedings taken by any revenue court under the Act. There is nothing in the provisions of the Act or of the Rules to indicate that provisions of Order 47 CPC would be in applicable to proceedings before the Tribunal. It must necessarily follow that the Tribunal is governed by the provisions of Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure.
Rules 134 of the Rules reads:
The procedure for revenue courts and proceedings before revenue officers shall be governed by Schedule III.
Schedule III to the Rules deals with the procedure of revenue courts including the Tribunal. Schedule III prescribes rules regarding appeal and revision before the Tribunal. Paragraph 62 reads:
Subject to the provisions of these rules, all formal enquiries by revenue court shall be held in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for regular suits and summary enquiries by revenue courts shall be held in the manner provided in the said Code for suits of small cause nature.
The above provision gives support to the inference that I have drawn from Rule 135 of the Rules.
Sub-Section 1 of Section 5 of the CPC reads as:
Where any Revenue Courts are governed by the provisions of this Code in those matters of procedure upon which any special enactment applicable to them is silent, the State Govt. may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare that any portion of those provisions which are not expressly made applicable by this Code shall not apply to those courts, or shall apply to them with such modifications as the State Govt. may prescribe.
According to the provisions where the Code governs proceedings in a Revenue Court, State Government may restrict totally or partially the application of any of the provisions of the Code to such a Revenue Court. The object of Section 5 of the Code is to preserve the summary character of litigation before revenue courts. Admittedly the State Government has not issued any notification restricting fully or parts the application of provisions of Order 47 of CPC to the Tribunal.
I, therefore, hold that the Tribunal discharging functions under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, can exercise power of Review under Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order at Annexure-A/4 is unsustainable and set aside. The Tribunal will have to take the case back to file and dispose the same in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed without costs.