Holding

The Collector is a revenue officer and his orders under Section 54 CPC are appealable under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, giving superior revenue authorities revisional jurisdiction.

Summary

The respondents filed a partition suit involving land assessed for revenue. The trial court, invoking Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, referred the partition to the Collector, who issued an order. The Collector's order was challenged before the Deputy Secretary under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, who remanded the matter back to the Collector. The respondents contended that the Deputy Secretary lacked jurisdiction to review the Collector's order, leading to a regular civil suit that upheld the Collector's order. The High Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law arose. The Supreme Court held that the Collector is a revenue officer, his orders under Section 54 are appealable under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and superior revenue authorities have revisional jurisdiction, thereby setting aside the High Court's order and remanding the case for merits.

Issues considered

Whether the Collector, as a revenue officer, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the State Government under the Bombay Land Revenue Code for appeal or revision of his order passed under Section 54 CPC.
Whether Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code allows an appeal from the Collector's order even when the order is made under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the Deputy Secretary had jurisdiction to consider the propriety of the Collector's order.
Whether the second appeal involved a substantial question of law.

Legislation cited

Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879s. 203, s. 211, s. 37
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 54, s. 90

Subjects

partition suitland revenueCollectorrevenue officerappellate jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionSection 54 CPCSection 203 BLRCsubstantial question of lawcivil appeal

Judgment

A DA!'vfJI.BHAl BUIBHAI VASA VA ..
v.
RANCHHODBHAI ZINABHAI AND ORS.

FEBRUARY Y, 2(,'00

B (S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND S.N. PHlJKA~, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section 54--Decree-Paltitivn--Paymenf of revenue to Government.
c
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section JQO- -Second Appeaf-Sr4bstantial question of law.

Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 : Section~· 203 and 21 I.
D
Collector--Order passed by-Powers of Deputy Secretary to consider
propriety of such an order.

Partition suit-Decree passed in-Part of property in decree assessed to
E land revenue-Partition of proper!.ies under Section 54 C.P.C.-co/lector's
order challenged before Deputy Secretary -Deputy Secretary remanded the
matter to Co/lecto,......(,"'hal/enge to order of Deputy Secretary-Ground chat he
had no jurisdiction to consider the propriety of order passed by Coilec-
to,-Suit decreed and appeal against decree dismissed-Second Appeal-Dis~
F missal on the ground that it did not involve substantial question of
law-Hence, appeal before Supreme Court-Held: important and substantial
question of law was involved in the case-Order of High Court set
aside-Case rema'Jded to High Court-Second Appeal :,·hall be treated as
admitted-Appeal should be disposed on merits after notice to parties.

G Paygonda Survgonda Patil & Ors. v. Jingonda Surgonda Pati/ & Ors.
Affi (1968) Bombay 198; Ramac/Uilldra Shamarao Kulkami v. Prahlad
Krishnaji Kulkarni & Ors., AIR (1964) Mysore 31 and Sree Rajah
Matripragada Venkataraghava Roo Bahadur, Zamindar Garu & Ors. v. Sri
Rajesh Mantripragad Venkata Hanumantha Rao Bahadur, Zamindar Garu
H (deceased) & Ors., AIR (1945) Madras 336, referred to.
738
D.B. VASAVA v. RANCHHODBHAI Zl~ABHAI (S.S.AHMAD,J.j 739

~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 1707 of A
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.84 of the Gujarat High
Court in S.A. No. 190 of 1984.

A.K. Ganguli, Harish J. Zaveri, Jatin Zaveri and Ms. Kavita Gulati B
for the Appellant.

Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Sumita Hazirika and Abhijat P. Mcdh for
Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered by :
c
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. 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 1%9 which decree was uphe!d by the fust appellate court and also
by the High Court. Since one of the properties in respect of which partition D
decree was passed was assessed to land revenue payable to the State Govt.,
the trial court referred the matter to 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 befon: the Deputy Secretary under Section 211 E
of the Bombay Land Rewnuc Cod~:, 1879. This Revision was allowed on
2.7.1977 and the Deputy Secretary remanded the matter to the Collector.
The order of the Depllty Secretary was challenged hy 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 F
decr~ed on 22.12.1981. The appeal prderred 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.
G
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
Cod~ 1879. He plared reliance upon Sections 203 and 211, which are
reproduced below : H
740 SUPRf-.MF. C'C JU RT REPORTS 1200011 S.C.R.

A ' 203. ln th~ absence of any cxprcss provision of this Act, or of any
law for th~ time being in force ~u the contrary, an app~:al shall lie
from any decision or ord~r passed by a rev~nue ofticer under this
Act or any other law for the tim-. bdog in force, to that officer's
immediate su~rior, whether such dcc..ision or order may itself have
been passed on appeal from a subordinat~ officer's decision or
B order or not.

211. The Statt: Gov~rnment and any revcm.le officer, not inferior
in rank to an Assistant or Dt:puty Collector or a Supl.!rintcndcnt
of Surwy, in their respective dt:partments, may call fur and cx-
c amint: th~ record of any inquiry l>r thc proccedings of any subor-
dinate re\lcnu~ offi~;er, for the purpo~e of satisfying itself or
himsc:.lf, as the C.ts~ may be, as to th~ legality or propri~ty of any
d~cision or order passed, and as to the rebrularity of the proceed-
ings of such officer.
D
The following officers may in the same manner call for and examine
the proceedings of any officer suborclinate to them in any matter
in which neither a formal nor a summary inquiry has been hdd,
namely, • • • a Mamlatdar, a Mahalkari and Assistant Superin-
tendent of Survey and an As:.istant Settlement Officer.
E
If in any case, it shall appL~ar to the Stale ( iovanmcnt or to
such Offic\::r aforesaid that any dt·c.:ision or 11rd~r or procc~ding~
so called for should bt modified, annulled or rcvcrstd, it or he
may pass !>och order thereon as \t or h~ dc~ms fit.
F
Providt:d that an Assistant or Deputy Collector shall not him-
self 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."

G It is contended that since it is specifically provided under Section 203
that any order passed by a Revenue Offiet:r under this Act {or any other
law for the time being force) would be appealable to that officer's imm~·
diate superior, the order passed b)' the Collector could be legally chal·
lenged under the Cod~ to the superior officer. Under Section 211, the
H revisional jurisdiction of the State Government could also be invoked.
lW. VASA VA v. RANCHHODBHAl ZlNABHAl [S.S. AHMAD, J.J . 741

- In ord~r to substantiate his contention, learned counsd placed
n~liance upon the:: decision of tht! Bombay High Court iu Paygonda Survgon-
da Patil & Or~·. v. Jingonda Surgunda Patil & Ors. AIR (1986) Bombay 198,.
A

.... in which it was, inter alia, laid down as under :

''(11) We arc, however unable to acct:pt the first part of the B
learned Oovcrnment pleader's argument, viz. th~ CoUector ~ not
a revcnu~ officer when he is engaged in any official work other
than 'lht: businc.:ss of the land revenue or of th<.: surveys, assessment,
accounts or records conm:ctcd therewith". In our view, the word
"employed" in the definition of revenue ofticer in section 3(1) of
the Land Revenu~ Code has reference to the purpose of employ- C
mcnt of the officer concern~d or the normal work for which he is
employed, and does not refer to the particular work which he may
have to do at a particular time in the course of his official duties.
lt appears to us that this is the natural meaning of the word
"employed" in th~ context in which it occurs. The Collector is a 0
n:venue officer, because he is appointed under the provisions of
the Bombay Land Revenut: Code and bt:caust: th~ purpost: of his
employment and th~ normal work for which he is employed is to
look aftl!r the r~venue administration of district. D~cisions and
orders passed by him an:, th~rdor~, appealablt: under S.203 even
when thl..iy are not passt:d io th~ course of n:wnue administration. E
There arc !'Orne cogent rcason:s for accepting thi:- intcrprr.::tation of
- ..
\
thG l~rm ··revenue offict:r" ddined in S . 3(1) and ClCCurring m S.203
of the Bombay land Rewnue Code.

(12) In the first place, it can be shown that in S.203 itself the F
legislature has used the term ''Rev~nu~ Ofticcr" in the st:nse men-
tioned abov<::. Several provisions of the Land Revenue Code confer
powers and imp~s~ duties upon the Coll~:ctor in the performance
of which he is not engaged "in or about the business of the land
revenue or of the surveys, assessment accounts or records con-
m:cted therewith." According to tht: view urgt:d by tht: learned G
Government pleader, the Collector is not a revenue officer when
h~ acts under those provisions. Any decision or order made b)' the
Coll~ctor under those provisions should, therdore, not be subjt:ct
to any appeal under S. 203. That is, howewr, not the case. For
instance, sub-section (2) of S.37 of the Bombay Land Revenue H
742 SUPREME COt:RT REPORTS [2ro0ll S.C.R.

A Code says that where any property or any right in or over any
property, is claimoo by or on behalf of the G,overnment or by any
person as against the Government, it shaU be lawful for the Col-
lector or a survey officer, after formal inquiry of which due notice
has been givt:n, to pass an order deciding the claim. Now the
property involved in the Collector's decision under S37(2) need
B not be a revenue paying land, and even when it is a r~;;venuc paying
land the inquiry into the claim conneded then:with cannot be said
to be a business of the land revenue or of the surveys, assessment,
accounts or records connected therewith. Yet a decision of the
Collector under S. 37(2) is appealable and this is recognized by
c the Legislature itself.''

It was further observed :

' (13) Secondly, the interpretation which the learned Govern-
ment pkader seeks to impose on the term 'Revenue Officer' in
D section 3(1) and section 203 would render nugatory that part of
section 203 which allows an appeal to be filed from any decision
or order of the Collector passed under any law other than the
Bombay Land Revenue Code. The Bombay Land Revenue Code
is a complete Code providing for all matters regarding land
rew nue and work connected therewith. It is not easy to find
E
another Act which confers on the Collt:ctor such powers and
impose.c; upon him such duties as would employ him "in or about
the busincs& of the land T~;;venuc or of the ~>urvcys, assessment,
accounts, or r.:cords c0nnected therewith." No instance of such an
act was brought to our notice."
F
It was further held :

~he fact that the duty to effect a partition of revenue paying
lands is cast by section 54 on the Collector or any gazetted
subordinate of the Collector deputed by him does not exclude the
G right of superior revenue authorities to examine and correct any
decision or order of the Collector in the exercise of their appellate
and revisional powers. Section 54 contains no provision and cer-
tainly no express provision, which runs counter to the appellate
powers conferred by section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue
H Code.
D.B. VASAVA v. RANCHHODBHAI ZINABHAI [S.S. AHMAD, J.j 743

We are accordingly of the view that the Commissioner erred A
in law in holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal
or a revisional application against any order of a Collt:ctor passed
in proceedings relating to the execution of a decree for partition
of revenue paying lands passt:d by a Civil Court."

The Bombay High Court dissented with the view taken by the Mysorc B
High Court in Ramachandra Sham(l]'ao Kulkarni v. Prahlad Krishnaji
Kulkarni & Ors. AIR (1964) Mysore 31, in which tht: provisiom of Bombay
Land Revenue Code were considered. The view expressed by the Bombay
High Court is in consonance with the view of the Madras High Court in
Sree Rajah Mantripragad Venkataraghava Rao Bahadur, Zarnindw Garo & C
o~·. v. Sri Rajesh Mantripragad Venkata Hanumantha Rao Bahadur, Zamin-
dw Garu (deceased) & Ors., AIR (1945) Madras 336.

It is thus apparent that there was an important and substantial
question of law, which was involved in thi,.; case, which required a decision
from the High Court. Since the second appeal filed by the appellant was D
summarily dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of Jaw was
involved, we allow this appeal set aside the order passed by the Gujarat
High Court and rt:mand the case back to the High Court so that the second
appeal which shall be treated as ''admitted" may be disposed of on merits,
after notice to the parties. No order as to costs.
E
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
~·
!
\