GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS

                        [2015) 15 S.C.R. 522


A           GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI
                                  v.
         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS
                  (Civil Appeal No. 5102 of 2006)
B
                       NOVEMBER 06, 2015
             [M. Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
          Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966- ss.11, 257
  -and 259 - Second Revision u/s.257 - Entertained by State
C Government - Maintainability of - Held: The provisions of
   the Code suggest that the State Government is the supreme
   revenue authority in revenue matters - The revenue officers
   are subject to superintendence, direction and control of State
   Government- Jurisdiction of the State is concurrent with the
D jurisdiction of other Revenue officers in deciding the Revision
   - Even if the decision of the revenue authority is considered
   to be final, the State Government in exercise of its revisional
   as well as general power of superintendence and control can
   call for any record of proceedings and consider legality and
E propriety of orders passed by the revenue officers u/s.257 -
   The code does not bar exercise of revisional power second
   time by a superior officer or State Government- In the present
   case, it was well within jurisdiction of the State Government
   to entertain the second revision.
F
         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. In view of the provision of Maharashtra
  Land revenue Code, 1966, it is clear that in revenue
  matters the State Government is the Supreme Revenue
G Authority. The language and the words used in s.257 of
  the Code suggest that jurisdi.ction of the State
  Government is concurrent with the jurisdiction of other
  Revenue officers in deciding the revision. Hence, even
  if one party goes to the Commissioner in revision, the
H State Government can still be approached under
                            522
GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI v. THE STATE              523
       OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS

Section 257 for revision. The power of revision exercised A
by any Revenue officer including the Commissioner is
a proceeding by a subordinate officer and the State
Government can satisfy itself as to the legality and
propriety of any decision including the order passed in
revision by the Revenue officers. [Paras 22 and 27] [536- B
C; 539-F-H; 540-A]
     2. Further, in view of the fact that State Government
itself appoints the Revenue officers including the
Commissioner under the scheme of the Code and all
Revenue officers are subordinate to the State C
Government as per Section 11 of the Code, and even
the Chief Controlling Authority in all matters connected
with the land revenue in his Division is vested with the
Commissioner, they are subject to the superintendence,
direction and control of the State Government as D ·
provided .under Section 5 of the Code. The power of the
State Government has further been widened by Section
259 of the Code, which makes it clear that even .if the
decision is considered to be final, the State Government's
power to call for and examine the record and E
proceedings of subordinate officers is saved. In other
words, the State Government in exercise of its revisional
as well as general power of superintendence and control
can call for any record of proceedings and consider
the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the F
Revenue officers under Section 247 or 257 of the Code.
[Paras 28, 29] [540-A-C, F-C]
     3. There is nothing in the Code to suggest that if
these revisional powers are exercised by a Revenue
officer who has jurisdiction, it cannot be further G
exercised by a superior Revenue officer or by the State
Government. A fair reading of Sections 257 and 259
suggests that if revisional powers <Ire exercised by a
Revenue officer having jurisdiction to do so, further
                                                        H
524         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 15S.C.R.


A revisional power can be exercised by the superior officer
  or by the State Government. [Para 30] [540-H; 541-A-B]
        /shwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
       2005 (1) SCR 96 : (2005) 2 SCC 334- relied on.
       4. Therefore, in the present case, the Minister
B concerned of the State Government can entertain
  second revision to satisfy the legality and propriety of
  the order passed by the Revenue Officer. [Para 32]
  [542-B]
                    Case Law Reference
c
      2005 (1) SCR 96            relied on            Para 31
           CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
      5102 of 2006.
D            From the Judgment and Order dated 13. 7.2005 of the
      'Jivision Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in
      Appeal No. 55/2003.
         HuzefaAhmadi, Sr.Adv., Ravindra Srivastava, Sr.Adv.,
   Shirish K. Deshpande. Rohan Sharma, Ms. Bina Gupta,
 E Abhay Anand Jena, Ranjit Raut, Nishant Ramakantrao
   Kafneshwarkar, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Siddharth
   Bhatnagar, Sidharth Mohan, Ms. Garima Tiwari, (For Mr.
   Nirnimesh Dube,)Advs. for the appearing parties.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 F
        M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This appeal by special l~ave is
  directed against order dated 13. 7.2005 passed by the Division
  Bench of the Bombay High Court. Dismissing Letter Patents
  Appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the
G learned Single Judge who dismissed his writ petition and
  confirmed the orders passed by the State Minister for Revenue
  in the proceeding R. T.S.3402/ Pra.kra.309/L-6 dated 18th
  October, 2002.
      2. It is the appellant's case that his father Shri
H Nawoosingh Panjumal Panjwani was a displaced person who
GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI v. THE STATE                        525
 OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

migrated from Pakistan to India during the period of partition A
and the appellant's family while in Pakistan was having
agricultural land over there admeasuring 4 acres 10 gunthas.
After migration, the family took shelter at Refugee Camp of
Pimpri, Pune in Maharashtra. In view of enactment of
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, B
1954 by the Union of India, the immovable properties left
behind by Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan were
acquired and the same was distributed to displaced persons
as a "compensation pool". Accordingly, father of the appellant
was allotted a land admeasuring 2 acres 5 gunthas bearing c
Revenue Survey Nos.351 and 118/2 situated at Village
Lonavala, Taluka Mavai, District Pune. It has been pleaded by
the appellant that Survey No.118/1 and 118/2 are one and the
same thing.
       3. The facts in brief, as narrated in the impugned order,   D
are that Survey Nos.118, 328 and 351 of Lonavala were
originallyowned by one Haji Habib Tar Mohammed Janu. The
said Haji Habib Tar Mohammed Janu migrated to Pakistan
and while going to Pakistan, he sold his property to one Smt.
Hajrabi Haji Yusuf on 4.6.1949. However, this transaction was      E
cancelled by the Collector and Custodian of Evacuee Property
on 17.4.1949 as per Section 8(i) of the Evacuee Properties
Act and these lands were accordingly entered as Evacuee
Property by the Tahsildar, Mavai on 26.10.1949. It appears
that these survey numbers were also given C.T.S.No. 129, 130-      F
A, 130-B and 133. It appears that in CTS No.129, 130-A, 130-
B and 133, apart from vacant land there is a bungalow No.52-
Habib Villa. It appears that the Regional Settlement
Commissioner placed this property for auction through
GovernmentAuctioner and one Gulabbai Desaipurchased the            G
said property in auction for a consideration of Rs.16, 750/- on
17.5.1956 and, accordingly, sale certificate was issued by the
Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay on behalf of the
Government. In the said sale certificate the C.T.S. No 129,
                                                                   H
526        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 15S.C.R.


A     130-A, 130-8 and 133 of Village Lonavara were mentioned.
           The area of this CTS Nos. were as under:
           129 - 55.16 sq:mts.
           130A-1651.1 sq.mts.
           1308 - 2934.02 sq.mts
B
           133 - 3237.00 sq.mts


           Total 7897.21 sq.mts.

c
        4. On the basis of the said sale certificate the mutation
  Entry No.1836 was effected in the village record in favour of
  Gulabai Desai, and thereby her name was entered in Survey
  Nos.118/1 Band 328 of village Lonavala to the extent of 29.30
D Ares and 70 Ares respectively. Thereafter, Gulabai sold CTS
  No.133 admeasuring 33 Gunthas on 24.4.1977 to Respondent
  No.3 Genu Kadu. The said Gulabai also gifted her remaining
  area from this Survey numbers to her grandson Anil Gajanan
  Desai on 15.1.1979, who in turn has sold his properties to·
E Respondent no.2 - Prem Hasmatraj Lalwani in the year 1980.
       5. The Survey Nos.118/2 and 351, being Evacuee
  Properties, were allotted to the Appellant in the year 1956.
  Later on, it was found that the Appellant is in possession of
  more area and, therefore, the said order was modified on
F 6.5.1982 and excess area was granted to the Appellant on
  payment of Rs.31,360/-, which Appellant had paid on 17.5.1982
  in Government Treasury and thereby the Deputy Collector and
  Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Pune granted the excess
  land to the Appellant, and thereafter the dispute started
G between the parties.
        6. In the impugned order, Division Bench made it clear
  that since the dispute between the parties was in respect of
  the area, as to what has been purchased in auction sale by
H Gulabai Desai and what is the area allotted to the Appellant
 GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI v. THE STATE                      527
  OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

by the orders of the Deputy Collector and Deputy Custodian A
of Evacuee Properties, the Appellant requested the Bench not
to enter into the merits on this question in this LPA since the
parties may prosecute their remedies in the Civil Court for such
adjudication, and therefore, that aspect was not considered
by the High Court. However, in the facts of the conflicting claims, B
the Appellant made grievance to the Deputy Collector and the
Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties in respect of the
Mutation made in favour of the Respondent Gulabai and other
Respondents and, therefore, by order dated 18.9.1984 the
Deputy Collector and Deputy Custodian of Evacuee                   c
Properties, Pune; directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Haveli
Sub Division to take up the case in revision under Section
257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and pass necessary
orders. In view of these directions, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Haveli, Sub Division, Pune, initiated proceeding RTS Revision D
14 of 1984 and by order dated 30. 7 .1985 cancelled the
 mutation Entry No.1836 which comprises land admeasuring
 7897 sq. yards and directed necessary corrections in the
record as per the observations made in the order.
        7. It appears that the said order was taken in appeal by E
  the respondent and the matter was remanded to the Sub
  Divisional Officer. After remand, the Sub Divisional Officer,
  conducted inquiry and again passed an order on 29.10.1987
  and confirmed the earlier order. Therefore, the RTS Appeal
  No.128 of 1987 was preferred before the Collector, which was F
  disposed off by the Additional Collector on 13. 7 .1993. By the
  said order, the Order of the third Sub-Divisional Officerwas
  maintained. However, further inquiry as directed by the SDO
  was to be conducted. Since the mutation Entry No.1836 was
  cancelled by above order, the Talathi gave effect to these G
  orders and effected the mutation Entry t':Jo.2176 and showed
· the disputed properties in the name of the Collector and D·eputy
  Custodian of Evacuee Properties. The directions were issued
  by the Collector to the Tahsildar to place the appellant in
                                                                   H
528       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 15 S.C.R.


A possession of the property as per the orders of the Deputy
  Collector and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties.
  However, instead of giving effect to those orders, it appears
  that the Revenue Officers at Tahsil level effected two mutations,
  viz, Mutation No.2377 and 2394. By mutation entry No.2377
B the name of respondent was again m·u'tated in the record and
  by the mutation Entry No.2394 the natne of Genu Kadu was
  mutated in the record. Since the Collector noticed on complaint
  that the orders of the Collector has been bypassed or
  surpassed by the Subordinate Revenue Officers, the Collector
c by order dated 12.7.1999 directed the SDO to take these
  mutations namely mutation Entry No.2377 and 2394 in revision
  and therefore the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mavai Division has
  taken these mutations in revision bearing RTS Revision No.12
  of 1999. The said revision was decided by the Sub Divisional
D officer at Mavai on 28.1.2000 and those mutations were
  cancelled.
         8. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the said
   revision, Respondent No.2 Lalwani preferred RTS Appeal
   No.81 of2000 and the Respondent No.3 Genu Kadu preferred
 E RTS Appeal No.114 of 2000. Both these RTS Appeals were
   heard by the Additional Collector, Pune and by order dated
   28.5.2001 the Addi. Collector, Pune dismissed the said
   appeals and confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer,
   Mavai. Aggrieved by the said order of the Additional Collector,
 F Respondent No.2 preferred RTS Revision No.330 of 2001
   under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
   before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. The
   said revision was decided by the Additional Commissioner,
   Pune by order dated 22.11.2001 and the said revision was
 G dismissed.
         9. Respondent No.2 challenged this order of the
   Additional Commissioner by filing the proceeding RTS 3402/
   Pra.kra.309/L-6 by way of second revision before the Revenue
 H Minister for State and the said proceeding was decided by
GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI v. THE STATE                          529
 OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

the Minister for State on 18.10.2002. The Revenue Minister A
allowed the said proceeding and set aside the orders passed
by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mavai dated 28.1.2000, order
dated 28.5.2001 of Additional Collector, Pune and of Additional
Commissioner dated 22.11.2001, and thus, restored the
position as reflected by the Mutation Entries Nos.1836 and B
2377 and 2394. Thus, all the entries in favour of the
Respondents were protected and maintained by the order of
the State Minister for Revenue.
      10. Appellant challenged the order dated 19.10.2002
passed by the Minister by filing a writ petition, which was          C
dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.
Thereafter, the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal, which was
also dismissed by the Division Bench holding that when the
State Minister for Revenue entertained the matter, he was
possessed of jurisdiction under Section 257 of the                   D
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and, therefore, the order
passed by him under the said authority is within his jurisdi~tion,
power and competence. The Division Bench observed thus:
      " ... We record our finding that under Section 257 of
                                                                     E
      the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code more than
      one revision is possible. Now coming to the facts
      of the present case, the mutation Entry No.1836
      was in fact certified. However, the Sub-Divisional
      Officer has taken the said mutation in revision in
                                                                     F
      RTS Revision No.14 of 1984 and has set aside
      the mutation by order dated 30.7.1985. There was
      appeal as against that orderwhichwas remanded.
      It was again decided by the Sub Divisional Officer
    . on 29.10.1987 and the said mutation was set aside.
                                                                     G
      There was RTS Appeal No.128 of 1987 which was
      decided on 13.7.1993. In view of these orders the
      mutation entry No.1836 was cancelled and Mutation
      Entry No.2116 was effected whereby the name of
      the Collector and the Deputy Collector of the
                                                                     H
530   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 15 S.C.R.


A     Evacuee Property was entered into 7 X 12 extracts.
      It is further found that when the orders of the
      Collector directing to put the petitioner into
      possession were not obeyed by the subordinate
      Revenue Officers and the Revenue Officers
B     effected the mutation entry No.2377 in favour of the
      Respondent Nos.3 Gulabai Desai and Mutation
      Entry No.2394 in favour of the Respondent No.5
      Genu Kadu and thereafter for second time the
      special Divisional Officer, Mavai, has exercised the
c     revisional powers under Section 257 and initiated
      proceeding RTS Revision 12 of 1999 in respect of
      the mutation entry No.2377 and 2394. The RTS
      Revision 12/99 was allowed on 28.1.2000 as
      against that two RTS appeals namely, RTS Appeal
D     No.81 of 2000 and RTS Appeal No.114 of 2000
      were preferred by the Respondent. They were
      decided on 28.5.2001. As against that the RTS
      Revision No.330 of2001 was preferred. The same
      was dismissed. As against that the RTS proceeding
E     bearing No.3402 /Pra.Kra.309/L-6 was preferred
      before the Minister for State. All these proceedings
      will show that twice the Sub-Divisional Officer has
      exercised the revisional power under Section 257
      at the directions of the Collector, namely the RTS
F     Revision No.14 of 1984 and RTS Revision No.12
      of 1999. It will further reveal that the appeals as
      against the RTS Revision No.14 of 1984 was
      preferred by the parties in view of the provisions of
      Section 247 and 249 sub-section 2. It will equally
G     appear that when the orders were passed in
      Revision Application No.12 of 1999 before the Sub
      Divisional Officer in exercise of the powers under
      Section 257 the parties have preferred two RTS
      appeals in view of the provisions of Section 247
H     and 249 sub-section 2. Not only that, thereafter the
GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI v. THE STATE                     531
 OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

     RTS Revision Application No.330 of 2001 was also            A
     preferred before the Commissioner and if the view
     is taken that the second revision is not tenable then
     in that circumstances since the first order p~ssed
     in RTS Revision No.12 of 1999 is a revisional order,
     this second revision before the Commissioner                B
     being RTS Revision No.330 of 2001 would not have
     been tenable. However, said revision RTS 330 of
     2001 is tenable since the appeals as provided
     under Section 247 and 249 intervene in between
     the revisional orders passed by the Sub-Divisional          C
     officer and the Commissioner. Thus, in short, we
     find that the scheme under Maharashtra Land
     Revenue Code is quite different scheme and it
     permits more than one revision. Thus, viewed from
     any angle, we find that the Sta.te Minister for Revenue     D
     when he entertained the matter, State Minister for
     revenue was possessed of jurisdiction under
      Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
     Code and therefore the order passed by him under
     the said authority is within his jurisdiction, power        E
     and competence."
     11. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
      12. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant, mainly attackea the revisional F
power exercised by the Minister concerned in purported
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code. In the alternative, learned Senior counsel
submitted that even if it were to be admitted without prejudice
that second revision is maintainable, the Minister being the
revisional authority should not have interfered with the findings G
recorded by all the six Revenue Authorities. Referring the
decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sambappa
vs. State of Maharashtra [(2002) SCC on line, Bombay
1222], learned counsel submitted that when the Sub-Divisional
                                                                 H
532         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 15 S.C.R.


A     Officer, Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner had
      concurrently recorded finding in favour of the appellant by
      observing that the revenue record is not in consonance with
      the factual aspect and they have directed to correct the revenue
      entries, in such a case, the second revisional authority
 B    exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the said application
      and interfering with the finding of fact. Section 257 makes it
      clear that a revisional authority has to consider only the legality
      and propriety of the decision. Learned counsel referring the
      revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of
 c    the Code of Civil Procedure tried to impress us that when the
      power of revision is given to the District Judge, then the High
      Court cannot entertain second revision petition under Section
      115 of the Code. L.earned counsel relied upon the decision of
      this Court in the case of State of Kera/a vs. K.M. Charia
 o    Abdulla & Co., AIR 1965 SC 1585 and Hari Shankar vs.
      Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698.
             13. Mr. Ahmadi, learned senior counsel further submitted
      that a request was made to the High Court not to enter into the
      merit of the case, and to confine itself to the question whether
 E    a second revision was at all maintainable, in the light of the
      ratio in Harishankar's case (supra), (1962) Suppl.(1) SCR
      933, Hira/a/ Kapur vs. Prabhu Choudhury, (1988) 2 SCC
      172 and Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad
      Mirasaheb Kadri and others, (1987) 3 SCC 538. Learned
 F    counsel also drew our attention to the decision of this Court in
      Dharampa/ vs. Ramshri, (1993) 1 SCC 435 where this Court
      held that a second revision to the High Court under Section
      482 of the Cr.P.C. was riot permitted.
 G        14. Lastly, Mr. Ahmadi submitted that the second revision
   would not lie under Section 257 of the Revenue Code since
   Section 259 of the Code provides an opportunity to the State
   Government to only correct any "Final Order" while exercising
   power under the provisions of Section 257 i.e. with regard to
 H its legality and propriety.
GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI v. THE STATE                         533
 OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

      15. Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, learned senior counsel A
appearing for the respondent-State, at the very outset
submitted that the appellant conceded before the High Court
not to decide the merit of the case. The only point raised before
the High Court was with regard to the maintainability of second
revision before the State Government under Section 257 of B
the Revenue Code. Learned counsel submitted that Section
257 expressly confers power of revision on the State
Government which power is coupled with power of control and
superintendence. Learned counsel submitted that the
Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner is not equal in         c
a rank but subordinate to the State Government. Learned
counsel submitted that the State Government is the supreme
revenue authority and existence of more than one appeal or
revision to an aggrieved party is not per se abhorrent to any
legal principle; depends upon the Statute. Mr. Srivastava then      o
contended that the High Court correctly analysed and
appreciated the scheme of the Code vis a vis judicial review
in revenue matters. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the
decision of this Court in the case of /shwar Singh vs. State
of Rajasthan and others, (2005) 2 SCC 334 for the E
proposition that there can be a second revision under the same
provision of the Statute.
      16. The only question that falls for consideration is as to
whether a second revision under Section 257 is maintainable
and that whether the State Government exceeds its jurisdiction      F
in entertaining the second revision?
     17. Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid question,
we would like to refer the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code 1966.
                                                                    G
      18. Section 2(31) defines the Revenue Officer as under:-
     "2 (31 )" revenue officer" means every officer of any rank
     whatsoever appointed under any of the provisions of this

                                                                    H
534        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 15S.C.R.


A          Code, and employed in or about the business of the land
           revenue or of the surveys, assessment, accounts, or
           records connected therewith ;"
          19. Chapter II deals with the Revenue Officers, their
      powers and duties. Sections 5, 6 and 7 reads as under:-
B
           "5. Chief Controlling authority in revenue
           matters. The chief controlling authority in all matters
           connected with the land revenue in his division shall
           vest in the Commissioner, subject to the
c          superintendence, direction and control of the State
           Government.
           6. Revenue Officers in division. The State
           Government shall appoint a Commissioner of each
           division; and may appoint in a division an Additional .
D          Commissioner and so many Assistant
           Commissioners as may be expedient, to assist the
           Commissioner:
           Provided that, nothing in this section shall preclude
           the appointment of the same officer as
E          Commissioner for two or more divisions.
           7.Revenue officers in district. (1 )The State
           Government shall appoint a Collector for each
           district (including the City of Bombay who shall be
 F         in charge of the revenue administration there of;
           and a Tahsildar for each taluka who shall be the
           chief officer entrusted with the local revenue
           administration of a taluka.
           (2)The State Government may appoint one or more
G          Additional Collectors and in each district (including
           the City of Bombay and so many Assistant
           Collectors and Deputy Collectors (with such
         · designations such as "First", "Second", Super

H
GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI v. THE STATE                    535
 OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

     numerary'', etc. Assistants as may be expressed in        A
     the order of their appointment), one or more Naib-
     Tahsildars in a taluka, and one or more Additional
     Tahsidars or Naib-Tahsildars therein and such other
     persons (having such designations) to assist the
     revenue officers as it may deem expedient.                B
     (3)Subject to the general orders of the State
     Government, the Collector may place any Assistant
     or Deputy Collector in charge of one more sub-
     divisions of a district, or may himself retain charge
     thereof. Such Assistant or Deputy Collector may also      c
     be called a Sub-Divisional Officer.
     (4) The Collector may appoint to each district as
     many persons as he thinks fit to be Circle Officers
     and Circle Inspectors to be in charge of a Circle,
                                                               D
     and one or more Talathis for a saza, and one or
     more Kotwals or other village servants for each
     village or group of villages, as he may deem fit."
     20. Section 11 of the Code is.worth to be quoted herein
below:-.                                                       E
     "11.Subordination of officers.
     ( 1)All (evenue officers shaU be subordinate to the
     State Government.
     (2)Unless the State Government directs otherwise,         F
     all revenue officers in a division shall be subordinate
     to the Commissioner, and all revenue Officers 2[in
     a district (including the City of Bombay)] shall be
     subordinate to the Collector.
     3)Unless the State Government directs otherwise,          G
     all other Revenue Officers Including survey officers
     shall be subordinated, the one to the other, in such
     order as the State Government may direct."

                                                               H
536         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 15 S.C.R.


A            21. Sections 13 and 14 deal with the powers and duties
      of all Revenue Officers.
             22. From reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest
      that the State Government makes appointment of the Revenue
      Officers including the Commissioner and the Chief Controlling
 B    Authorities in the revenue matters. Section 5 makes it clear
      that the Chief Controlling Authority in all matters connected with
      the land revenue in his Division shall vest with the
      Commissioner, subject to superintendence, directions and
      control of the State Government. Section 11 provides that all
C     Revenue Officers shall be subordinate to the State
      Government. It is, therefore, clear that in revenue matters the
      State Government is the Supreme Revenue Authority.
            23. In the present case, we noticed the scheme of the
 0    Code in the matters of hearing and disposal of appeals,
      revision and review. Section 247 deals with the appeal and
      appellate authorities, which reads as under:-
            "247 .Appeal and appellate authorities.
            ( 1)In the absence of :=my express provisions of this
 E          Code, 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 or survey officer
            specified in column 1 of the Schedule E under this
            Code or any other law for the time being in force to
 F          the officer specified in column 2 of that Schedule
            whether or not such decision or order may itself
            have been passed on appeal from the decision of
            order of the officer specified in column 1 of the said
            Schedule.
G
            Provided that, in no case the number of appeals
            shall exceed two.
            (2)When on account of promotion of change of
            designation, an appeal against any decision or
 H
GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI v. THE STATE                                 537
 OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

           order lies under this section to the same officer who            A
           has passed the decision or order appealed against,
           the appeal shall lie to such other officer competent
           to decide the appeal to whom it may be transferred
           under the provisior1s of this Code."
     24. Section 248 is also relevant which provides the forum              8
of appeal to the State Government. Similarly, Section 249
makes provision of appeal against the review or revision.
     25. The schedule preferred to in Section 227 mentions
the Authorities before whom appeal would lie. The Schedule                  c
appended to the Code is as follows:-
                               Schedule E
                            (See section 247)
     -         ..          ----   -----        -·----·------- - - - - - -
 I           REVENUE OFFICER APPELLATE AUTHORITY                            D
         1. 1 ., All Officers in a Sub-divisional Officer or
             Sub-Division,    sub- such Assistant or Deputy
           i ordinate to the Sub-· Collector as may be
             division Off          specified by the Collector
                                   in this behalf.
                                                                            E
     2. Sub-Divisional Officer,           Collector or such Assistant
        Assistant or Deputy               or Deputy Collector who
        Collector.                        may be invested with
                                          powers of the Collector. by
                                          the State Gov·ernment in
                                          this behalf                       F
         3. Collector 1 (including        Divisional Commissioner.
            the     Collector    of
            Bombay) or Assistant/
            Deputy        Collector
            invested    with   the
            appellate power of the                                          G
            Collector.,
         4. A person exercising Such officer as may be
            powers conferred by specified by the State
            section 2 (15).,        Government in this behalf.
                                                                            H
538       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 15S.C.R.


                  -----
A
                          --~--




            Surverv Officer             Annellate Authoritv
      1. District Inspector of       Superintendent of Land
         Land Records, Survey        Records or such Officers of
         Tahsildar and other         equal ranks as may be
         Officer not above the       specified by the State
B        rank     of    District     Government in this behalf.
         Inspector of Land
         Records ..


      2. Superintendent       of Director of Land Records
c      Land Records and or the Deputy Director of
       other Officer of equal Land Records, who may be
       ranks.,.                    invested with the powers of
                                   Director of Land Records
                                   by the State Government in
D                                  this behalf.
        26. Section 257 is the relevant provision which deals with
  the power of State Government and of certain revenue and
  survey officers to call for and examine the records and
  proceedings of Subordinate Officers. Section 257 reads as
E under:-
         "257. Power of State Government and of
         certain revenue and survey officers to call for
         and examine records and proceedings of
         subordinate officers.
F
         (1) The State Government and any revenue of survey
         officer, not inferior in rank to an Assistant or Deputy
         Collector or a Superintendent of Land Records, in
         their respective departments, may call for and
G        examine the record of any inquiry or the
         proceedings of any subordinate revenue or survey
         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
H        regularity of the proceedings of such officer.
GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI v. THE STATE                      539
 OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

     (2) A Tahsildar, a Naib-Tahsildar, and a District           A
     Inspector of Land Records rnay 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.
     (3)lf in any case, it shall appear to the State              B
     Government, or any officer referred to in sub-section
     ( 1) or sub-section (2) 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.                              c
     Provided that, the State Government or such officer
     shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any
     question of right between private persons without
     having to the parties interested notice to appear           D
     and to be heard in support of such order.
     Provided further that, an Assistant of 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              E
     Collector, who shall pall such order thereon as he
     may deem fit."
        27.Abare reading of the aforesaid provision would show
that the provision uses the word 'and' for State Government
but for other Revenue officers it uses the word 'or'. The F
language and the words used in the said provision suggest
that jurisdiction of the State Government is concurrent with the
jurisdiction of other Revenue officers in deciding the revision ..
Hence, even if one party goes to the Commissioner in revision,
the State Government can still be approached under Section G
257 for revision. The power of revision exercised by any
Revenue officer including the Commissioner is a proceeding ..
 by a subordinate officer and the State Government can satisfy
 itself as to the legality and propriety of any decision including
                                                                   H
540         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 15 S.C.R.


A     the order passed in revision by the Revenue officers.
             28. Further, in view of the fact that State Government itself
      appoints the Revenue officers including the Commissioner
      under the scheme of the Code and all Revenue officers are
      subordinate to the State Government as per Section 11 of the
B     Act, and even the Chief Controlling Authority in all matters
      connected with the land revenue in his Division is vested with
      the Commissioner, they are subject to the superintendence,
      direction and control of the State Government as provided under
      Section 5 of the Code. The power of the State Government
c     has further been widened by Section 259 of the Code, which
      reads as under:-
            "259. Rules as to decisions or orders expressly
            made final
D           Whenever in this Code, it is provided that a decision
            or order shall be final or conclusive, such provision
            shall mean that no appeal lies from any such
            decision or order; but it shall be lawful to the State
            Government alone to modify, annul or reverse any
E           such decision or order under the provision of
            Section 257."
        29. The aforesaid provision makes it clear that even If
  the decision is considered to be final, the State Government's
  power to call for and examine the record and proceedings of
F subordinate officers is saved. In other words, the State
  Government in exercise of its revisional as well as general
  power of superintendence and control can call for any record
  of proceedings and consider the legality and propriety of the
  orders passed by the Revenue officers under Section 24 7 or ·
G 257 of the Code.
    . 30. From perusal of the entire scheme of the Code
  including Section 257, it is manifest that the revisional powers
  are not only exercisable by the State Government but also by
H certain other Revenue officers. There is nothing in the Code to
GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANI v. THE STATE                     541
 OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

suggest that if these revisional powers are exercised by a       A
Revenue officer who has jurisdiction, it cannot be further
exercised by a superior Revenue officer or by the State
Government. A fair reading of Sections 257 and 259 suggests
that if revisional powers are exercised by a Revenue officer
having jurisdiction to do so, further revisional power can be    B
exercised by the superior officer or by the State Government.
      31. A similar question came for consideration before this
Court in the case of lshwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 334 under the Rajasthan
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. In thatAc,t by Section 128
                                                                 c .
power was conferred upon the State Government and the
Registrar to call for and examine the records of any enquiry or
proceedings of any other matter, of any officer subordinate to
them, forthe purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality
or propriety of any decision or order passed by such officer. It D
was submitted by the counsel that Section 128 related to two
authorities i.e. the State Government and the Registrar. In fact
the two authorities are interchangeable. If one authority
exercises revisional power, the other authority logically cannot
have exercised such power. Hence, it was argued that second E
revision was not maintainable. Rejecting the submission this
Court held:-
     "20. Sub-section (2) of Section 124 provides that if the
     decision or order is made by the Registrar, appeal lies F
     to the Government and if the decision or order is made
     by any other person, or a cooperative society, the appeal
     lies to the Registrar. Therefore, under Chapter XIII a clear
     distinction is made between the State Government and
     the Registrar. The test is whether the two authorities with
     concurrent revisional jurisdiction are equal in rank. It is, G
     therefore, not correct as contended by learned counsel
     for the appellant that the two authorities i.e. the State
     Government and the Registrar are interchangeable. The
     power of the Government and the Registrar in terms of
                                                                  H
542          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 15 S.C.R.


A           Section 128 excludes matters which are covered by
            Section 125 i.e. revision by the Tribunal."
            32. Considering the entire scheme of the Code, and the
      provisions contained in Sections 257 and 259, we are of the
      definite opinion that the Minister concerned of the State
B     Government can entertain second revision to satisfy the legality
      and propriety of the order passed by the Revenue Officer. The
      Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has elaborately
      discussed the question and passed the impugned order
      holding that Section 257 confers jurisdiction to the State
C     Government to entertain its revision against the order passed
      by any Revenue Officer either in appeal or in revision. We find
      no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court.
      Hence, this appeal has no merit which is accordingly
      dismissed.
D
             33. Before parting with the order, we must make it clear
      tnat in view of the request made by the appellant before the
      High Court not to enter into the merit of the case since the
      party may prosecute their remedies in the Civil Court for
E     adjudication, we have not expressed any opinion with regard
      to the merit of the case of the parties. The parties may
      prosecute their remedies in Civil Court in accordance with law.


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                             Appeal dismissed.