MST. SADIQUA BEGUM & ORS. versus THE BOARD OF REVENUE, MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 01-02-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
809 
MST. SADIQUA BEGUM & ORS. 
v. 
THE BOARD OF REVENUE, MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 
;.. 
February I, 1985 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.) 
Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated 
Lilnds) Act, 1950 and M. P. Lilnd Revenue Code, 1959-Both the statutesinpari 
mat1ria-Revem1e Officers exercising powers under both Acts cognately-Provisional 
power can be exerciSed by Revenue Officers under both Acts. 
The Collector validated certain transfers on the applications or appellant. 
u/s. 6 of the M. P. Abolition Act 1950 but a revision was taken by the Commis-
•ioner H/•. j() of the M. P. Land Revenue Code 1959 (for short, the Code) agailllt 
the order of the Collector. The appellants' contention before the Commissioner 
that he had no jurisdiction or power to revise the order of the Colloctor was 
rejected. Tho Board of Rennuc in th• revisiou aad tllo High Co11rt ia a it'rit 
petition filed by the appellant• confirm•d the view of the CommiS!ioner. Hence 
this appeal. 
The appellants contended (i) that the order of the Collector was not revis-
able under the Code because the Abolition Act was a Code or a law complete 
in itself and conferred no powers of revision or appeal outside the Abolition Act 
and therefore the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain suo moto 
revision; (ii) that since there was a right of appeal under sec. 84 of the Abolition 
Act, no revisional power could be exercised either by Commissioner or by the 
Board of Revenue under the Code; and (iii) that even assumina that the Abolition 
Act and the Code were statutes in pari materia, they possess two clearcut and 
separate powers, that is to say, no suo moto revision could lie to the Revenue 
Officers unless a revision or appeal was filed before the Commissioner by the 
party. 
y 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, to this Court 
HELD : (I) A perusal of the schemes ol the Abolition Act and the Code 
clearly h1dicates that the two Acts were in part mater/a and the revenue officers 
were 1xercisin1 powers under both the Acts cognately. There was no clearcut 
distinction between a Revenue Officer acting under the Abolition Act and acting 
uader the Code. This beina; the position, it is manifest that the revisional powers 
ccutd be exercised by the Revenue Officers under s. 50 of the Code and even 
~nd9r tile Abolition Act as well. [8U2D-EJ 
y 
SADIQUA BEGUM v. REVENUE BOARD (Faza/ Ali, J.) 
801 
(2) Under the provisions of, the Abolition Act as also the Code, both the 
Commissioner an4 the :Boa.rd were appellate as also revisional authorities. Thus, 
when two powers were coaf•rrtd on the said officers in a sort of a combined 
capacity, it cannot be said that merely because the formality of filing a reaular 
appeal before the Commissioner or the Board was not adopted, a suo moto 
re•ision would not lie. [302H; 81 JA·B] 
Int hi io1tant case, both the Conamis1ioner and the Board of Reyenwc had 
appellate as also rcvisional powers. Both these powers beina conferred on the 
same authority, the difference between the exercise of a reYision or appeal was 
a mere idlt formality and was of no consoq uence. [803C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUJUSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 245 (N) 
of 1971. 
Appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated the 
9th February, 1979 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur 
in Miscellaneous Petition No. 361 of 1967. 
Mukul Rohtagl. and A.. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellants. 
Ravinder Bana and A. K. Sanghi for the Respondents 
The Judgment of the Court wa1 delivered by 
F AZAL Au, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against a 
judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ 
petition filed by the appellants against certain orders of the Revenue 
Officers nndor the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of 
Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahal&, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 
(for short, 'Abolition Act') which came into force sometime in the 
year 1951. By virtue of s.6 of the Abolition Act all transfers made 
by proprietors at any time after 16th March 1950 were deemed to be 
void unles• declared valid by the Collector on a proper application 
made to him. The transferees, in view of the aforesaid provisions, 
filed applications before the Collector in 1964 who validated the 
transfers by his order dated 6th June 1964. Against the order of 
the Collector a revision was taken by the Commissioner in exercise 
of his powers under s. 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.