The Supreme Court has held that the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be scuttled or whittled down, and that orders passed by statutory Revenue Courts exercising quasi-judicial powers can be tested before the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench order, which held that writ appeals against orders passed by the Single Bench in relation to revenue proceedings are not maintainable, being orders passed by the Single Bench in the nature of Article 227 writ proceedings and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench had also in the process held that the remedy of writ appeal lies only against orders passed under Article 226 by the High Court and not in respect of orders passed in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
The Single Bench in the present case set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, which in the revision proceedings preferred under Section 50 of the MPLRC, 1959 set aside the order of fresh demarcation passed by the Tehsildar, whilst affirming the demarcation carried out on its own directions. The Single Bench setting aside the order of the Addl. Comissioner had taken a view that he had acted in excess of his jurisdiction and exercised power not vested in him under the parent enactment. The aggrieved party appealed against the said verdict before the Division Bench, which repelled the appeal on the technical ground of maintainability.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the view taken by the Division Bench was in the teeth of law settled by the Supreme Court that jurisdiction against quasi-judicial authorities and officers, even if exercised under the provisions of MPLRC is amenable to writ jurisdiction, specifically of certiorari under Article 226. They further contended that powers of Article 226 and 227 are co-terminously exercised and therefore a writ appeal would clearly be maintainable.
The respondents on the other hand contended that the revenue authorities/courts are akin to the traditional civil courts by virtue of express provisions of the MPLRC, which treat them as ‘courts’ having the trappings of ‘civil court’.
Repelling the contention of the respondents, while allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that remedy lies only before the Division Bench.
