SURENDRA PAL SINGH versus THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

SURENDRA PAL SINGH versus THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 vests the Board of Revenue with both administrative and judicial superintendence over all revenue courts. The Board can set aside acts of subordinate courts that disregard the law, even without an appeal or revision by the State, if justice requires. The SDO committed illegality by applying the 1973 Act and treating father and son as separate units; the Board was right to set aside such orders and direct a fresh determination.

Parties
Appellant: Surendra Pal Singh; Respondents: The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 May 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petitions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Powers of Superintendence – Revenue Courts, Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings
Land Law Administrative Law Powers of Superintendence – Revenue Courts Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surendra Pal Singh

Appellant

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petitions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board of Revenue had judicial powers of superintendence under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to set aside part of the SDO's order not appealed by the State
  2. 2 Whether the SDO erred in determining ceiling area under the new Act of 1973 instead of under the Act of 1955 as directed

Ratio Decidendi

Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 vests the Board of Revenue with both administrative and judicial superintendence over all revenue courts. The Board can set aside acts of subordinate courts that disregard the law, even without an appeal or revision by the State, if justice requires. The SDO committed illegality by applying the 1973 Act and treating father and son as separate units; the Board was right to set aside such orders and direct a fresh determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan upheld
  • Writ petitions dismissed