Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal No. 7208 of 2012. Case: State of Gujarat and Anr. Vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association and Anr.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in 9 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 7208 of 2012
JudgesB.S. Chauhan and Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.
IssueBombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 - Sections 3(2), 4, 9, 9(4), 13(1), 15, 16, 17, 20, 32P, 32G(4), 38, 47, 48, 51, 51(1), 51(2), 71, 74, 76, 76(1), 80, 85, 85(2); Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1939; Indian Forest Act, 1927; Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946; Industrial Disputes Act, 1957; Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869; Constitution of India ...
CitationAIR 2013 SC 107, 2013 ALT (Rev) 25 (SC), 2013 (288) ELT 3 (SC), 2012 GLH (3) 541, 2013 (1) GLR 886, 2012 (4) JLJR 405, JT 2012 (10) SC 422, 2012 (8) MLJ 96 (SC), 2012 (10) SCALE 285, 2012 (10) SCC 353, 2013 (1) SCC (LS) 56
Judgement DateOctober 16, 2012
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

B.S. Chauhan, J.

  1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.9.2009, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 8209 of 1988, by way of which the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondents striking down Rule 3(1)(iii)(a) of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1982'), which conferred power upon the State Government to appoint the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, as President of the Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') constituted under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1957').

  2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are mentioned hereunder:

    1. The Government of Gujarat, in exercise of its power under the Act of 1957 and the Rules, 1982 appointed Appellant No. 2 as the President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 16.4.1988. His appointment was challenged by the Respondents herein, on the ground that the office of the Chairman, being a "judicial office" could not be usurped by a person who had been an Administrative Officer all his life. The validity of Sections 4 and 20 of the Act 1957 and Rule 3(1)(iii)(a) of the Rules 1982 was challenged. The Appellants contested the writ petition, submitting that in exercise of the power conferred under Section 20 of the Act 1957 and the Rules 1982, a notification was issued on 8.2.1983, making the Secretary to the Government eligible for appointment as Chairman of the Revenue Tribunal, and as he had acted as a Revenue Officer while holding the posts of Sub Divisional Officer, District Collector, and Divisional Commissioner, it could not be held that he was ineligible to hold the said post of President of the Tribunal.

    2. During the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition before the High Court, the Government of Gujarat made the appointment of Shri A.D. Desai, a retired I.A.S. Officer on 27.2.2007 to the post of President of the Tribunal, however, the operation of his appointment order was stayed by the High Court. this Court, while entertaining Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4924 of 2007, vide order dated 26.3.2007, stayed the operation of the order of the High Court. The said S.L.P. was finally disposed of vide order dated 16.4.2008 observing that, the petition had been filed only against the interim order passed by the High Court. However, the said interim order dated 26.3.2007 passed by this Court, by which it stayed the order of the High Court, as mentioned earlier, would continue till the disposal of the Special Civil Application No. 8209 of 1988 by the Gujarat High Court. Subsequently, State of Gujarat vide order dated 29.7.2009, appointed Mr. A.J. Shukla as the President of the Tribunal.

    3. The High Court then, vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.9.2009 held that the Tribunal was in the strict sense, a "court" and that the President, who presides over such Tribunal could therefore, only be a "Judicial Officer", a District Judge etc., for which, concurrence of the High Court is necessary under Article 234 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present appeal.

  3. Shri Preetesh Kapur, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, submitted that the High Court committed an error by striking down the aforesaid rule, holding that the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat cannot be appointed as President of the Tribunal. It erred in holding that the Tribunal was a court and only a "Judicial Officer", i.e., a Judicial Officer holding such equivalent post as is referred to in Rule 3(iii) of the Rules 1982 can be appointed as President of the said Tribunal. The Secretary to the Government had already worked as a Revenue Officer for a prolonged period of time and, hence, has acquired the requisite experience to deal with all types of revenue matters, in spite of the fact that the Tribunal has the trappings of a court, he is eligible for the said post in terms of qualifications. An Administrative Officer, who is a member of the Tribunal under Rule 3(1)(iii)(g) can still be appointed as the President of the Tribunal as the validity of Clause (g) was not under challenge. But on that count there will be no illegality. The Tribunal cannot be held to be a 'court' within the meaning of the Constitutional provisions. The Act 1957 and Rules 1982, do not even suggest consultation with the High Court, while appointing the President of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

  4. On the contrary, Shri Yashank Pravin Adhyaru, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that, no error can be found with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. This is because the earlier Acts, which stood repealed by the Act of 1957, did not contain any provision enabling the State Government to appoint an Administrative Officer as the President of the Tribunal. Under the old Act, the person who is eligible to hold such post was a retired Judge of the High Court. Moreover, Rule 3(iii) of the Rules 1982 enables the State Government to appoint a Judicial Officer, a District Judge, the President of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay and the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court to the aforementioned post. In case they are still in service, the question of their appointment as President of the Revenue Tribunal,, would never arise, without the effective consultation/concurrence of the High Court. The provisions of Articles 233 to 236 of the Constitution of India are attracted. In fact, this is the ratio of the impugned judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is warranted. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

  5. We have considered the rival submissions made by Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

  6. The High Court itself has taken note of the previous statutory provisions, observing that the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act 1939'), did not provide for the post of President as such, and that this power was conferred upon the rule making authority. Rule 4(1) of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Rules 1939, (hereinafter referred to 'Rules 1939') prescribed the qualifications for the post of President, as a person who has officiated as a Judge of the High Court, or has served as such, or has exercised the powers of, a District Judge, or the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, for a period of not less than 10 years and has retired from service of the Crown in India.

  7. In the year 1941, Rule 4(1) of the Rules 1939 was amended vide Notifications dated 5.12.1940 and 22.9.1941. As per the amended Rules, the President could be a person who had either officiated as a Judge of the High Court, or had served as, or exercised the powers of a District Judge, or of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, for a period of not less than 10 years, and had retired from the service of the Government of India or the Government of any State. In 1957, Rule 4(1) was substituted, enabling the rule making authority, inter-alia, to appoint the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Legal Department and the Legal Remembrancer of Legal Affairs as President of the Tribunal. Later, the Act of 1939 was substituted by the Act, 1957.

    Relevant Statutory Provisions:

  8. Section 3(2) of the Act 1957, provides for the appointment of the President and Members of the Tribunal. Section 9 thereof, provides for the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and decide appeals from, and revise decisions and orders in respect of cases arising under the provisions of the enactments specified in the First Schedule. Schedule 1 includes the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1874 as extended to the Kutch area of State of Bombay, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 etc.

    Section 9(4) of the Act reads as under:

    Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, when the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals from and revise decisions and orders of, any person, officer or authority to any matter aforesaid, no other person, officer or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals from and revise decisions or orders of such person, officer or authority in that matter.

    Section 13(1) of the Act reads as under:

    In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
9 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT