LexDAMJIBHAI BIJIBHAI VASAVA versus RANCHHODBHAI ZINABHAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D DA!'vfJI.BHAl BUIBHAI VASA VA v. RANCHHODBHAI ZINABHAI AND ORS. FEBRUARY Y, 2(,'00 (S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND S.N. PHlJKA~, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 54--Decree-Paltitivn--Paymenf of revenue to Government. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section JQO- -Second Appeaf-Sr4bstantial question of law. Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 : Section~· 203 and 21 I. 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. VASA VA 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, J atin 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 : 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 c 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 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. 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 F G reproduced below : H A B c D E F G 740 SUPRf-.MF. C'C J U RT REPORTS 1200011 S.C.R. ' 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 order or not. 211. The Statt: Gov~rnment and any revcm.le officer, not inferior in rank to an Assistant or Dt:pu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.