AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.K. Sema, J.—This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.8.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 57 of 1976.
We have heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Y. Imo Singh, learned Advocate General, Manipur and Mr. N. Surjamani Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. A. Nilamani Singh has urged 2 (two) points before us. They are:
(i) that the learned Single Judge did not decide the issue as to whether on the face of appeal provisions provided by Section 93 a revision can be preferred u/s 95 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1963 (No. 33 of 1960) (hereinafter the Act);
(ii) whether the persons who are not a party to a proceeding u/s 11(3) of the Act are competent to file revision petition u/s 95 of the Act.
We shall now proceed to deal with the point No. 1 in the context of Section 93 and 95 of the Act. Section 93 of the Act provides for appeal against various orders. Sub-section (1)(c) provides that if such an order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tribunal. In the present case since the order was passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, the appeal lies to the Tribunal. In Section 94 of the Act it has been provided that no appeal shall lie after the expiry of 30 days from the date of order appealed against in case of first appeal and after the expiry of 60 days from the date of order appealed against in the case of 2nd appeal. It is contended by Mr. Nilamani Singh that on the face of the provisions for appeal no revision can lie before the Tribunal u/s 95 of the Act.
Section 95 of the Act as it stood before the amendment reads:
The Tribunal or the Deputy Commissioner may at any time either on his own motion or on the application of any party, call for the records of any proceedings before any Revenue Officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or the propriety of any order passed by such Revenue Officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit:
Provided Ural he shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any right between private persons without having given to the parties interested notice to appear or be heard.
It is submitted at the bar by counsel of both sides that in the case at hand unamended old Section 95 will be applicable.
It is contended by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh that u/s 5 of CPC the State Govt. was empowered to issue notification in the official gazette to declare that any portion of the provisions of CPC which are not expressly made applicable by the code shall not apply to revenue courts, or shall only apply to such revenue courts with such modification as the State Government may prescribe. According to this provision Govt. may restrict totally or partially the application of any of the provisions of the Code to such revenue courts. Since no notification restricting the application of CPC in Revenue Court u/s 5 has been issued, it is contended that the CPC would be applicable in too in a revenue proceeding. In this connection he has also drawn our attention to the provision of Rule 135 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reform Rules, 1961 (hereinafter the Rules). Mr. Nilamani strenuously contended that the language ''as far as may be'' employed in Rule 135 would mean to the ''farthest extent'' and it should be understood in its extension. In this context the learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that in view of the revisional power provided u/s 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, and on the face of the provision provided u/s 93 of the ML & LR Act providing for appeal, no remedy u/s 95 of the Act was available to the Respondents.
Section 115 of the CPC empowers the High Court to call for the records of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to High Court and in which no appeal lies on the ground that if such subordinate court appears: (emphasis supplied)
a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or
b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
A bare reading of the aforesaid section, it clearly appears that the powers of revision conferred by Section 115 of CPC is with regard to jurisdictional error, whereas the revisional power conferred by sect. 95 of the ML & LR Act is with regard to ''illegality or the propriety of any order passed by such revenue officer. Therefore, the scope of Section 95 of the ML & LR Act is much wider than the Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. Another glaring distinguishing feature between Section 115 of CPC and Section 95 of the ML & LR Act is that u/s 115 revisional power under the said section can be exercised only in the cases in which not appeal lies thereto. This restriction is conspicuously absent in the language used in Section 95 of the Act. No such restriction has been imposed in Section 95. This has been deliberately avoided by the legislature. The whole object of Section 95 of the Act is to safeguard the summary character of litigation before revenue Court. Therefore, on the face of clear and unambiguous language employed in Section 95, it is very clear that Section 95 does not bar any revision even if there is an appeal provision u/s 93 of the Act. In other words, Section 115 of CPC is baring section, whereas there is no such bar in the language expressly or by a implication In Section 95 of the ML & LR Act. We cannot employ a new language what the legislature had not intended. The law has to be interpreted as it is, We therefore hold that even on the face of appeal provision contained in Section 93 of the ML & LR Act, revision u/s 95 of the ML & LR Act is maintainable. In other words, revisional jurisdiction u/s 95 can be invoked even when an appeal is provided for u/s 93, but appeal is not preferred.
With regard to the second point, it is contended by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not a party in a proceeding u/s 11(3) of the Act and as such they are not competent to file a revision petition u/s 95 of the Act. On going through the averments made in the writ petition and grounds taken, we find that the second point has not been urged by the Appellants before both the courts below. Before the learned Revenue Tribunal the Appellants filed a written statement contending that:
(a) that the revision is not maintainable when the Act has given a right of appeal to the Government and they have not exercised it within the period of limitation allowed by law, through their sheer negligence and lapses; and
(b) that the Tribunal cannot call for the records of any proceeding before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner as the later is not a revenue Officer subordinate to the Tribunal.
Further in a writ proceeding the Appellants amongst Ors. took the following grounds in paragraph 11 of the writ petition:
(a) that the revision at the instance of the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondents No. 2 and 3 claiming through the former is not maintainable, particularly when they have the right of appeal conferred on them expressly by law and they failed to exercise the right and allowed the period of limitation for appeal to run out;
(b) that there is absolutely no cogent reason shown by the Respondents No. 1-3 (i) why they could not file an appeal in the court of the Tribunal within the period of limitation prescribed for such appeal and (ii) what good cause prevented them from preferring the appeal in time;
(c) that in the absence of any such reasons or cause the Tribunal has no power to entertain the revision applications, even assuming but not admitting that it has the necessary jurisdiction u/s 95 of the Act;
From the averments and grounds taken in a writ proceeding as well as before the learned Revenue Tribunal, second point has not been urged by the Appellants. Therefore, it was not the case of the Appellants that Respondents No. 2 and 3 are incompetent to file revision petition u/s 95 of the ML & LR Act as they were not a party in a proceeding u/s 11(3) of the Act. On the other hand as discussed above, the case of the Appellant was consistently, throughout that no revision would lie on the face of appeal provision, which we have already answered in point No. 1.
For the aforestated reasons there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and consequently no interference is called for. Writ appeal is dismissed.