Pramod Kumar Agrawal Vs Board Of Revenue

¶1

1 / 5

WPC No. 1700 of 2015

2024:CGHC:44600

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1700 of 2015

¶7

Pramod Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ishwar Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Manendragarh, Police Station Manendragarh, Tehsil Manendragarh, Civil And Revenue District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Through Secretary, Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Capitol Complex, Naya Raipur, Police Station Naya Raipur, Civil And Revenue, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Collector, Koriya, District Koriya, Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Devesh Kela, Panel Lawyer

¶16

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

14/11/2024

¶19

By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 06/08/2015 passed by the Board of Revenue in Miscellaneous Case No. M/11/R/A-74/162/2015 by which the learned President of the Board of Revenue has taken a decision

¶20

2 / 5

¶21

WPC No. 1700 of 2015 to suo motu review the order dated 13/04/2015 by which his predecessors in Office had refused to review the order dated 13/10/2009 passed in Revision Case No. R.N./11/R-A74/31/2009. The petitioner is also questioning the notice issued to him on 10/08/2015 in pursuance to the order dated 06/08/2015 of the Board of Revenue.

¶22

(i) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by raising a short question submits that, the order dated 13/04/2015 has been passed by the then President of the Board of Revenue by which the review petition filed by the State Government has been rejected and refused to review the order dated 13/10/2009 passed by his predecessors in Office in Revision Case No.R.N./11/R-A74/31/2009. The said review was not entertained by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the review petition was filed after four years of the order passed by the Board of Revenue in the revision i.e. order dated 13/10/2009, but subsequently by the impugned order, the learned President of the Board of Revenue has taken a decision by the impugned order dated 06/08/2015 to review the order dated 13/04/2015. In pursuance to the said decision, notice has been issued to the petitioner on 10/08/2015. He further submits that the President who has taken a decision suo motu to review its earlier order passed by his predecessors in violation of the settled principles of law, established practice and procedure by taking of the matter in suo motu.

¶23

3 / 5

¶24

WPC No. 1700 of 2015 (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code’), there can be no review of the order passed in review otherwise the same would result in endlessness. The provision under Section 32 of the Code does not give the Board of Revenue any jurisdiction to review even the order passed in review by his immediate predecessors. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Inderchand Jain V/s Motilal reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 and submits that the review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order and a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, submits that the Board of Revenue by considering the fact that there are some mistake and irregularity in the earlier order passed by his predecessor in the Office has taken a decision to review its earlier order by which the Board of Revenue refused to review an order passed in revision and there is no illegality in the order and he supported the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶27

The impugned order is an order by which the President of the Board of Revenue on suo motu decided to review its earlier order passed by his predecessors in Office who had refused to entertain

¶28

4 / 5

¶29

WPC No. 1700 of 2015

¶30

the review application of the State. The State had filed the review petition seeking a review of order dated 13/10/2009 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. R.N./11/R-A-74/31/2009 but the said review petition was filed at a belated stage i.e. near about more than four years and for which the Board of Revenue rejected the review application filed by the State. The Board of Revenue taken a decision to review its earlier order dated 13/04/2015 by exercising powers under Section 32. The provisions of Section 32 of the Code provides as under:-

¶31

“32. Inherent power of Revenue Courts – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.”

¶32

From perusal of Section 32, it appears that it has not authorised the Revenue Courts including the Board of Revenue to review its earlier decision suo motu. Section 32 speaks about the inherent power of Revenue Courts, which empowers Revenue Courts to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Inderchand Jain (supra) observed and laid down the law that the review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order and a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the General

¶33

5 / 5

¶34

WPC No. 1700 of 2015

¶35

Rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered it is also tried that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.

¶36

Section 51 of the Code also does not prescribe any power to the Board of Revenue to review its earlier order in review and the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue by which a decision has been taken to review its earlier order passed in review is contrary to law and also the well-settled principles of law.

¶37

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 06/08/2015 and the notice dated 10/08/2015 issued to the petitioner are quashed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the above extent. However, the State is at liberty to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, to question the order passed by the Board of Revenue in its review dated 13/04/2015, and the order dated 13/10/2009 passed in Revision Case No.R.N./11/R-A-74/31/2009, if so desired.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

$. Bhilwar

Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Board Of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Board Of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Mohan Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Brij Mohan Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Brij Mohan Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt. Limited Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s Maa Danteshwari Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh