SURENDRA PAL SINGH versus THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 13-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SURENDRA PAL SINGH 
v. 
THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
MAY 13,1993 
Rajastlzan Tenancy Act 1955-S. 221-General powers of superin-tendency 
and control of Board of Revenue over all revenue courts, held includes both 
administrative and judicial powers-Ch. III-B, Ss 225,. 2JO-Rajastlzan Imposi-
tion of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. 
Proceedings were commenced under Chapter lll·B of the Rajasthan 
Tenancy Act 1955 for determining the ceiling area for Raghubir Singh, the 
father of the appellant. In a revision application in the first round of litigation. 
The Board of Revenue directed that the ceiling area for Raghubir Singh may 
be determined according to the old law, i.e.Actof1955, and not according to 
D 
the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Thereafter, by his order dt. 5.5.76, the SDO held, inter alia, that the 
father and the son, appellant, constituted two separate units and each of them 
was entitled to get 62 bighas and 8 biswas. 
Aggrieved by the SDO's order, Raghubir Singh fded an appeal before 
Revenue Appellate Authority, which was dismissed. He then fded a revision 
application under S.230 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue for 
Rajasthan. 
He urged that he was in possession of 112 bighas only and sought 
permission to adduce additional evidence, which was disallowed. However, 
the Member of the Board held inter alia that the provisions of the old law 
applied to the case, but the SDO had committed an error oflaw in determining 
the ceiling area under the new Act of1973. The Board further held that there 
is no provision for separate units in Chapter 111-B of the Act of 1955, and 
remanded the case to the SDO, Hanumangarh, for fresh determination of the 
Ceiling area for Raghubir Singh. 
Before the High Court, it was urged that the State having not appealed 
against the order of the SDO dated 5.5.76, it became final, and the Board of 
7?2 
SURENDRA PAL"· RAJASTHAN REVENUE BOARD 
723 
Revenue had no jurisdiction to set aside that part of the SDO's order which 
had gone against the Sta~e and in his favour. It was submitted that the power 
of general superintendence and control over all revenue courts which vested 
in the Board could not be exercised to the detriment of the writ petitioners 
much less by way of suo motu exercise of powers. 
The High Court dismissed the petitions. 
Before this court it was submitted that the State not having fded an 
appeal, or a revision, the Board of Revenue could not, while hearing the 
revision petition of Raghubir Singh, set aside the orders of the SDO and 
Revenue Appellate Authority. under S.221 of the Act of 1955. 
Dismissing the appeal, this court, 
HELD: (I) S.221 is not subject to the other provisions of the Act. It is 
clear from the language of Section 221 of the Act 1955 that the Board of 
Revenue has general powers of superintendence and control over all revenue 
courts. It is both administrative as well as judicial powers. It is open to the 
Board to exercise its powers of superintendence on all its subordinate courts 
in order to regulate the functioning of the subordinate courts so as to keep 
th~m within their respective spheres of jurisdiction. If the subordinate court 
disregards any specific provision oflaw and does something illegal it is open 
to the' Board of Revenue to interfere and set the matter right. (727-E) 
Karan Singh, .. Board of Revenue, Rajas than 1962 Raj LW 178 and Pennessar 
Singh v. Kailaspati AIR 1916 Pat. 292 (FB), distinguished. 
Kana , .. Board of Revenue ILR (1955) 5 Raj. 55, approved. 
(2) There is no restriction on the powers of the Board to set aside the 
order of the SDO provided it comes to the conclusion that interest of justice 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
requires exercise of such powers. (728-D) 
G 
(3) In not determining the ceiling area according to the Act of 1955, the 
SDO committed a grave illegality in not merely ignoring the law but also 
ignoring the directions of the Board of Revenue itself. (728_-F) 
H 
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1367 of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19. 7 .1979 of the Rajasthan High Court 
in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 769 of 1979. 
B 
Subhash Mallick and S.K. Jain for the Appellant. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B.D. Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
YOGESHW AR DA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.