Ganpat Ragho And Anr. vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur ... on 25 November, 1968

Here's a summary of the judgment:

1. Outcome
The Division Bench answered the referred question in the affirmative. It held that the revisional powers of the Collector under Section 110 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, are not restricted only to orders that are appealable under the Act. These powers extend to all orders of the Tahsildar or Tribunal, whether appealable or not, except in cases where an appeal has actually been filed and is pending within the prescribed period.

2. Core Issue
The core issue referred to the Division Bench was:
"Whether an order of the Tahsildar or the Tribunal is revisable under Section 110 of the new Tenancy Act, whether or not such order is appealable?"

3. Key Facts
* Initial Proceedings: Respondent No. 4 (Ninaji) initiated proceedings under Section 100(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (Vidarbha Tenancy Act), seeking a declaration that the petitioners (Ganpat Ragho And Anr.) were not tenants of a specific land.
* Naib-Tahsildar's Order: The Naib-Tahsildar Malkapur granted the declaration, holding that the petitioners were not tenants (June 16, 1964).
* Appellate Proceedings: Petitioners appealed to the Special Deputy Collector Buldhana, who rejected their appeal (February 23, 1965).
* Revision to MRT: Petitioners filed a revision application (No. 1113/Ten/1965) with the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT).
* MRT's Decision: A Full Bench of the MRT held that:
* Applications for negative declarations were maintainable, and the Tahsildar was competent to decide them.
* No appeal was competent against such Tahsildar's order to the Collector/Deputy Collector under Section 107 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act (unlike the corresponding Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948).
* The Collector's revisional powers under Section 110 could only be exercised against orders that were appealable under Section 107. Consequently, the revision in the present case was not competent.
* High Court Reference: This MRT order was challenged in a Special Civil Application. A Single Judge (Abhyankar J.) disagreed with an earlier Single Judge's (Paranjpe J.) decision that supported the MRT's restrictive interpretation of Section 110, leading to this reference to a Division Bench. The Division Bench proceeded on the premise that the Naib Tahsildar's order was not appealable under the then-existing Section 107.

4. Arguments (Taxpayer vs Revenue)
* Revenue (Mr. Kulkarni for Respondent No. 4; supported by MRT and Paranjpe J.):
* The opening clause of Section 110(1) – "Where no appeal has been filed within the period provided for it" – implies a clear limitation.
* The Collector's revisional powers can only be invoked for orders against which an appeal could have been filed.
* If an order is not appealable under Section 107 or any other provision, the condition of "filing an appeal within the period" does not arise, making such non-appealable orders beyond the Collector's revisional jurisdiction. This interpretation prevents the clause from being redundant.
* Taxpayer (Mr. Chandurkar for Petitioners; supported by Abhyankar J.):
* The clause "where no appeal has been filed within the period provided for it" primarily serves to exclude cases where an appeal has already been filed and is pending before an appellate authority.
* The Collector should be able to revise any order of the Tahsildar or Tribunal (whether appealable or not), provided an appeal is not already seized by the appellate authority. This interpretation allows for the correction of errors where no appeal remedy is available or has not been invoked.

5. Court’s Reasoning
The Court accepted the taxpayer's argument, finding it more sound, logical, and aligned with the overall tenor and object of Section 110:
* Comparison with CPC Section 115: The Court distinguished the phrasing of Section 110(1) from the more restrictive "in which no appeal lies thereto" found in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The former is not as clear and unambiguous, suggesting a wider scope for revisional powers, limited only when an appeal is actually pending.
* Legislative Intent and Object: Section 110(1) is a verbatim copy of Section 76-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, introduced to grant suo motu revisional powers to the Collector. This was intended to ensure the implementation of tenancy policy, especially in cases where ignorant tenants couldn't appeal or where collusion might defeat the Act's purpose. This object is better served by a broader interpretation that allows the Collector to intervene in any matter not already under appellate review.
* Avoidance of "Startling Results": A restrictive interpretation would lead to "unintended and startling results," excluding many unappealable orders with significant policy implications from revisional scrutiny. The non-appealability of an order, in fact, provides a stronger reason for legislative intent to include it within revisional powers.
* Wording of Clause (a) of Section 110(1): The use of "record of any inquiry" rather than "record of such inquiry" (implying "where no appeal was filed") supports an unrestricted power to call for records.
* Meaning of "Order" in Section 110: The term "any order" in Section 110 is not restricted to final or appealable orders but encompasses all orders, interlocutory or final, appealable or non-appealable, as appealability is not a necessary attribute for revisional powers.
* Precedent (S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon): Drawing an analogy from the Supreme Court's interpretation of CPC Section 115, the Court reasoned that the phrase "where no appeal has been filed within the period provided for it" in Section 110 should distinguish orders where an appeal has been filed from all other orders (where no appeal is filed, or no appeal lies), rather than distinguishing appealable from non-appealable orders.
* Support from Section 110(2): Section 110(2) explicitly makes non-appealable orders under Section 81 revisable by the Collector, reinforcing the idea that revisional powers under Section 110 generally do not depend on the appealability of the order.

6. Statutory References
* Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (Vidarbha Tenancy Act):
* Section 6
* Section 81
* Section 100(2)
* Section 107
* Section 110 (Sub-sections 1, 1(a), 1(b), 2)
* Section 111
* Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Tenancy Act):
* Section 74
* Section 76
* Section 76-A
* Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
* Section 104
* Section 115
* Order 43
* Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 1966
* Bombay Act No. 38 of 1957

7. Precedents Cited
* British India General Insurance Co. v. Itbar Singh, AIR 1959 SC 1331
* S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497
* Dhanalakshmi v. Parameswari, AIR 1953 Raj 214
* Ramgopal v. Satyanarain, AIR 1960 Raj 23