J.G. Chitre, J.
1. The respondent has been served but none present. The matter pertains to the year 1988. Hence, it is heard and decided treating the respondent ex-parte.
2. The suit property is a building known as 'Ganga Niwas' standing on Cadastral Survey No. 1284. For Division and bearing Bombay Municipal Corporation No. A Ward 2087 situated on the junction of Modi Street and Manohardas Street at H.S.C. No. 12/14, Modi Street, Fort, Bombay. The suit property was purchased by Chandradeo Gangaprasad Varma, the husband of the petitioner. During his life time, his father Gangaprasad Ramdhan Verma was alive. Chandradeo died on 15.4.1969 and much thereafter Gangaprasad died on 29.4.1982. The respondent is one of the sons of the said Gangaprasad. As the entire suit property was purchased by Chandradeo out of his earnings, he had kept it in his own name. To give respect to the father, name of Gangaprasad was also kept on record. All the taxes and other things were being paid by the said Chandradeo and after him by the petitioner, as averred by her.
3. After the death of Chandradeo, the petitioner applied to the Superintendent of Land Records to get the record corrected under the Land Venue Code. The Superintendent of Land Records corrected the record and entered the name of the petitioner by order dated 11.12.1986.
4. The Respondent filed an appeal to the Collector of Bombay. The Collector did not admit the appeal by holding that the order of the Superintendent of Land Records was under Section 287 of the Land Revenue Code and, therefore, appeal lies to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The appeal before the Collector was dismissed by order dated 16.4.1987.
5. The Respondent then filed Appeal No. INW No. 3915 of 1987 to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay and the learned President passed an order dated 29.4.1987 dismissing the application by holding that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The said order is dated 29.4.1987. While passing the said order, the learned President specifically mentioned therein that the appeal was not covered under Section 274 of the Land Revenue Code and was covered under Section 247, Schedule (E) of the said Code. Nearly two months after the said order, the Respondent filed a Review Application dated 16.6.1987 seeking review of the earlier order of the Revenue Tribunal.
6. The learned Incharge President of the Revenue Tribunal reviewed the previous order dated 29.4.1987 and admitted the said application for final hearing and that order is being assailed by this writ petition.
7. Shri Rege, counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the provisions of Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Revenue Code' for convenience) which reads:-
'247. (1) In the absence of any express provisions of this 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 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 :
(1) Provided that, in no case the number of appeals shall exceed two.
(2) When on account of promotion or change of designation, an appeal against any decision or order lies under this section to the same officer who 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 provisions of this Code.
8. Referring to the provisions of Section 247 of the Land Revenue Code, Shri Rege made reference to paragraph No. 3 and 5 of the judgment which has been passed by Incharge President who dealt with Review Application bearing No. INW 4969 of 1987 - Rev. C. 1 of 1988. He pointed out that the Incharge President did not adjudicate on the point whether the M.R.T. was having jurisdiction to deal with the entries made by the Superintendent of Land Records so far as property situated in Mumbai is concerned. He submitted that there was no reason for the learned Incharge President to admit the said review petition when that was contrary to the provisions of law. he prayed that it be set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner.
9. The learned Incharge President made reference to Section 274 of the Land Revenue Code, Section 300 of it and Section 322 in his judgment and order but did not adjudicate specifically on the point whether the M.R.T. is having the jurisdiction to entertain such a review application and to adjudicate over it. Therefore, it would be prudent to look to the provisions of Section 274, 300 and 322 of the Land Revenue Code as well as Schedule E. Section 274 of the Land Revenue Code reads:-
'274. Except as provided in Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 262B, an appeal shall lie against any decision or order passed by the Collector or any of his assistants or other subordinates exercising the powers of the Collector under this Chapter to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.'
Referring to the provisions of Section 274, the learned Incharge President of M.R.T. concluded that the Collector, Bombay, had delegated the powers of Collector to Superintendent of Land Records and, therefore, the M.R.T. had the jurisdiction to deal with the appeal filed against such orders passed by Superintendent of Land Records.
10. Section 300 of Land Revenue Code provides:
'(1) Whenever any dispute or question arises with respect to the making or completion of any entry or transfer in the records of the Collector, of or relating to any land, house or other immovable property subject to the payment of land revenue to the State Government, the Collector shall summon all the parties interested in such entry or transfer, and shall call for such evidence, and examine such witnesses, as he shall consider necessary, and shall thereupon decide summarily what entry shall be made in his records in respect of such land, house, or other immovable property.'
Sub-section (2) provides 'If at any time a certified copy shall be produced to the Collector of an order of a competent court determining the title to any such land, house or other immovable property, the Collector shall amend his records in conformity with such order.'
11. Section 322 of the Land Revenue Code provides:-
'(1) The Tribunal may, either on its own motion or on the application of any party interested, and where the State Government is heard, under Section 320 on the application by the Government, review its own decision or order in any case, and pass in reference thereto such order as it thinks just and proper:
Provided that, no such application made by any party shall be entertained, unless the Tribunal is satisfied that there has been the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of such party or could not be produced by him at the time when its decision was made, or that there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason;
Provided further that, no such decision or order shall be varied or revised, unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order.
(2) An application for review under Sub-section (1) by any party or, as the case may be, by the State Government shall be made within 91 days from the date of the decisions or order of the Tribunal.'
Provided that, in computing the period of limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, applicable to applications for review of a judgment or order of a Civil Court, shall, so far as may be, apply to applications for review under this section.'
12. In this context, provisions of Section 315 of the Land Revenue Code will have to be also kept in mind and that section starts with Sub-section (1) which provides:
'Notwithstanding, anything contained in Chapter XIII of this Code or any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of this section, in cases arising under the provisions of the enactments specified in Schedule J--
(a) an appeal shall lie to the Tribunal from original orders or decisions made or passed by the Collector; and
(b) an application for revision shall lie to the Tribunal from an order or decision made or passed by the Collector in appeal, against an order of decision made or passed by any subordinate officer or authority:'
Sub-section (2) of Section 315 speaks of the application for revision and other sub-sections deal with the other details of the jurisdiction and powers of the M.R.T., with which the present matter is not concerned.
13. Therefore, a reference will have to be made to Schedule J which provides that the M.R.T. is having appellate or revisional jurisdiction against the orders or decisions in cases arising under the following provisions. They are Section 24, Section 27, Section 59, except Clause (b) thereof, Section 65 and Section 66.
14. Section 24 reads:
'Any person who unauthorizedly removes from any land which is set apart for a special purpose or from any land which is the property of Government, any natural product (not being trees) shall be liable to the Government for the value thereof, and in addition, to a fine not exceeding five times the value, of the natural product so removed. Such value and fine shall be recoverable from him as an error of land revenue.
'27. Any person who shall unauthorizedly fell and appropriate any tree or any portion thereof which is the property of the Government shall be liable to the Government for the value thereof, which shall be recoverable from him as an arrear of land revenue, in addition to any penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of this Code for the occupation of the land or otherwise and notwithstanding any criminal proceedings which may be instituted against him in respect of his said appropriation of Government property.'
Section 59 except Clause (b):
'59. Any person unauthorisedly occupying, or wrongfully in possession of any land-
(a) to the use or occupation of which by reason of any of the provisions of this Code he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled, or'
(b) .....
'65. All alluvial lands, newly-formed islands, or abandoned river-beds which vest under any law for the time being in force in any holder of alienated land, shall be subject in respect of liability to the payment of land revenue to the same privileges, conditions, or restrictions as are applicable to the original holding in virtue of which such lands, islands, or river-beds so vest in the said holder, but no land revenue shall be leviable in respect of any such lands, islands, or river-beds until or unless the area of the same exceeds one acre and also exceeds one-tenth of the area of the said original holding'.
'66. Every holder of land paying land revenue in respect thereof shall be entitled, subject to rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf, to a decrease of assessment if any portion thereof not being less than half an acre in extent, is lost by diluvion and the holder shall, subject to rules made in that behalf, be liable for payment of land revenue on reappearance of the land so lost by diluvion not less than half an acre in extent.'
15. Thus, the M.R.T. will be having the jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the revision applications which are connected with the provisions of sections which are mentioned in Schedule J and in respect of that the phraseology used 'Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter XIII of this Code' would be applicable. Therefore, seeing all the provisions which are quoted in the abovementioned paragraphs, the situation becomes clear that the present matter will have to be seen in reference with Section 247 of the Code and not with Section 274 of it because Section 274 has got co-relation with the provisions of Section 315 and Schedule J. Section 247 deals with the mode of filing the appeal which has been indicated by Schedule E. Therefore, Schedule E will have to be directly seen in this context.
16. Schedule E provides:
REVENUE OFFICERAPPELLATE AUTHORITY
1.All Officer in a Sub-Division subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer.
Sub-Divisional Officer or such Assistant or Deputy Collector as may be specified by the Collector in this behalf.
2.Sub-Divisional Officer, Assistant or Deputy Collector.
Collector or such Assistant or Deputy Collector who may be invested with powers of the Collector by the State Government in this behalf.
3.Collector (including the Collector of Bombay) or Assistant/Deputy Collector invested with, the appellate power of the Collector.
Divisional Commissioner.4.'A person exercising powers conferred by section 15.
Such officer as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf.
SURVEY OFFICERAPPELLATE AUTHORITY
1.District Inspector of Land Records., Survey Tahsildar and other officers not above the rank of District Inspector of Land Records.
Superintendent of Land Records or such Officers of equal ranks as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf.
2.Superintendent of Land Records and other officer of equal ranks.
Director of Land Records or the Deputy Director of Land Records, who may be invested with the powers of Director of Land Records by the State Government in tills behalf.3.Settlement Officer.Settlement Commissioner
17. It is pertinent to note that in Section 247 the Legislature has taken the care to see that the appeal should not be heard by the same officer if he changes his designation by promotion.
18. Therefore, the intention of the Legislation is very clear as to how the orders which are passed by the officers concerned, in context with provisions of the Land Revenue Code, are to be dealt with. The matters which can be heard have been indicated by provisions of Section 274 with reference to Schedule J and other matters would be regulated by provisions of Section 247 with reference to Schedule E and nothing more.
19. Therefore, it was necessary for the learned Incharge President of M.R.T. to consider all these provisions with appropriate approach and it was necessary for him to come to the conclusion whether he was having the jurisdiction and powers to admit the appeal for hearing and decision which was once turned down by holding that the M.R.T. did not have the jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the appeal arising out of the order of the concerned officer in respect of the Land Revenue Code which are to be regulated by provisions of Section 247 of the Land Revenue Code having reference to Schedule E.
20. When these provisions are self-eloquent, self-sufficient making provision to deal with the situation, there would be only conclusion that the M.R.T., did not have and does not have any jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the appeals arising out of the entries which are made by Superintendent of Land Records while making entries in respect of the properties situated in Bombay (now Mumbai).
21. Thus, this Court does not have any hesitation to come to the conclusion that the learned Incharge President of the M.R.T. allowed himself to be misled by the submissions advanced and finally landed in error in passing the judgment and order which is being impeached by the present writ petition. Thus, the said judgment and order is not correct, proper and legal and what is not correct, proper and legal and consistent with the provisions of existing law, cannot be permitted to survive for any moment and, therefore, this Court issues a writ of certiorari for the purpose of correcting the error or law committed by the Incharge President of M.R.T. in passing the judgment and order which is being challenged by the writ petition. Thus, this writ petition is allowed. Therefore, the order assailed loses its existence and the earlier order holding that the M.R.T. does not have the jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide such an appeal stands restored.
22. Thus, the writ petition stands allowed with costs and rule stands made absolute.
23. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court.