| Headnote |
Watan Lands - Resumption- Government's order directing resumption - if can be reviewed by Government- Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (Bom. 3 of 1874) ss. 12, 74, 79.In 1944, the plaintiff moved the Government for rsumption of Watan Lands which were in the posscssion of defendants 2 to 4 and for making them over to him. The Government, after causing some enquiry to be made, resumed thoselands by its order dated October 9, 1946, and directedtheir restoration to the plaintiff'. Thereafter, the defendants moved the Govern men! for re-consideration of that order, and the Government modified its previou• order by directing that the defendants who were in possession of the lands, should continue to retain them but they should pay such rent as may be fixed by the Government from time to time. The plaintiff instituted a suit for a declaration that the order of the Government modifying the order of October 9, 1946, was null and void and inoperative. It was contended that the order made by Government on October 9, 1946, was a judicial order p:used by the Government in exercise or its revisional jurisdiction under s. 79 of the Watan Act, and it was not competent for the Government to revise or review that order in the absenr.e of a provision in the Act empowering the Government to do so. The suit was decreed by the trial court, butthe District judge set aside the decree and the High Court confirmed his deision. The plaintiff came to this Court by special leave.Held, that the decision of the trial court was correct and the government was not competent to modify the order dated October 9, 1916. The scheme of certain sections of Part II of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, including ss. II and 12, discloses that a judicial or quasi-judicial duty is imposed on the Collector to decide what is in effect a lis or quasi·lis between the Watandar and the alienee of the Watan land. The whole process, including the order made under s. 3 of the Act, is quasi·.judicial and not administrative. As the order made by the Collector under s. 12 is not au administrative order but a quasi-judicial order, it can be rectified or modified or set aside by the Commissioner in appeal or by the State government in revision under s. 79 and not otherwise. When an authority exercises its revisional powers, it necessarily acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. Hence, the order of the Government dated October 9, 1956, must be deemed to be a judicial or quasi-judicial order. Such an order cannot be set aside or revised or modified just as an administrative order can be revised or modified under s. 74. Finality attaches to the • Government's order under s. 79 and in the absence of any express provision empowering it to review the order, the subsequent order passed by the Government was ultra vires and beyond its jurisdiction. An order will be deemed to be of quasi-judicial character not only when there is a contest between one individual and another but also when the contest is between an authority purporting to do an act and a person opposing it, provided the statute impose a duty on the authority to act judicially. No period of limitation is specified in the Watan Act for preferring an application for revision. Normally, the Government would not interfere unless moved within a reasonable time. What should be considered as a reasonable time in a particular case, is a matter entirely for the Government to consider. In this case, the Government thought that it had strong reasons for interfering even after a long lapse of time, and that is why it interfered. It is settled law that civil courts have the power and jurisdiction to consider and decide whether a tribunal of limited jurisdiction has acted within the ambit of the powers conferred upon it by the statute to which it owes its existence or whether it has transgressed the limits placed on those powers by the legislature. Gullapalli Nayeswara Rao v. Andhra Prade.,h Road Transport Corporation, [1959] I S. C, R. 319, Board of Hiqh School anrl lntermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad v, Ghanshyam Das Gupta, [1962] Supp. 3 S. C. R. 36, Robinson v. Minister of Town & Country Planning, [1947] I All. E. R. 851 Franklin v. Minister of 1'own and Country Planning, [1948J A. C. 87, Ramrao Jankiram Kadam v, Stale of Bombay, 11963] Supp. I S. C.R. 322, Shrimant Sardan Bhujangarao Da.ulatrao Ghorpade v. Shrimant Malojirao DaulaJrao Ghorpade, (1952] S. C, R. 402, Province of Bombay v. Hormusji Manelji, ( 1947) I.R 74 I.A 103 and the secretary of state v. Must & Co. I.L.R 1940 Mad. 599 referred to. |
