R.M. Lodha, J.
1 .One of the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this petition is that no review application is maintainable for review of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in exercise of appellate powers u/s 6 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions contained in Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 are self contained and since no power is conferred on the M.R.T. to review its order, under the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, the M.R.T. seriously erred in allowing the review application filed by the respondent No. 3 by the impugned order dated 23-3-1983.
2. Suo motu proceedings were started by respondent No. 2 u/s 36(2) of Scheduled Tribes Act for restoration of Survey No. 70 admeasuring 16.15 acres which was transferred by the petitioner who happened to be Scheduled Tribe (for short ''tribal transferor'') to respondent No. 3 - Manohar ( for short non-Tribal transferee). By order dated 11-12-1979 the Additional Tahsildar, Sironcha ordered restoration of the said land by the non-tribal transferee to tribal transferor in exercise of powers conferred u/s 36(2) of the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The non-tribal transferee challenged the order passed by respondent No. 2 before the M.R.T. , who by order dated 30-4-1979 set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 2 and remanded the matter back to him for fresh enquiry. The respondent No. 2 held enquiry and by order dated 11-12-1979 directed non-tribal transferee to restore the said land to tribal transferor. The order passed by respondent No. 2 was again challenged by the non-tribal transferee before the M.R.T. u/s 6 of the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The M.R.T. after hearing parties, by order dated 23-3-1988, dismissed the appeal and maintained the order passed by respondent No. 2 directing restoration of land in question to the tribal transferor. Dissatisfied by the order passed by M.R.T. on 23-3-1988, dismissing the appeal filed by the non-tribal transferee, he filed review application before the M.R.T. purporting to be u/s 322 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The M.R.T. after hearing parties, by order dated 27-2-1989, allowed the review application and recalled its previous order dated 23-3-1988 and quashed the order passed by the respondent No. 2 on 11-12-1979.
3. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the review application before the M.R.T. u/s 322 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was not maintainable for review of the order passed by the M.R.T. u/s 6 of the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 relied upon the decision of this Court in Anupchand v. M.R.T. & others, 1986 Maharashtra Law Journal, 521. In the said judgment, this Court observed thus :
"The first point urged on behalf of the petitioner by Shri B.N. Mohta is that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal did not have the power under the Tenancy Act to review its own decision. Section 111 of the Act invests the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal with powers of revision and limits the exercise of the powers only to three grounds, namely, that the order of the Collector was contrary to law; that the Collector failed to determine some material issue of law; or that there was a substantial defect in following the procedure provided by the Act, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (2) provides that in deciding applications under this section the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall follow the provisions which may be prescribed by rules made under this Act after consultation with the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It is clear that the Vidarbha Tenancy Act which creates new rights, prescribes new procedure and creates special forums does not invest the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal with the power of review. Shri Ahmad the learned Assistant Government Pleader referred to the provisions of section 322 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which permits the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal either on its own motion or on the application of any party interested and where the State Government is heard u/s 320 on the application by that Government to review its own decision or order in any case and pass in reference thereto such order as it thinks just and proper. The State Government, however, was not a party to the proceedings before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the revision application nor was it heard by issuing a notice to it u/s 320 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The proviso to section 322 restricts the right of the party to move the Tribunal and the review can be made only on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of such party or could not be produced by him at the time when its decision was made, or that there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or for any other sufficient reasons and requires notice to be given to the party interested to appear or being heard in support of the order. Section 315(1) provides that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall be in cases arising under the provisions of the enactments specified in Schedule J which refers to four other Acts, but not to the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act. It is, therefore, clear that the powers which the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal can exercise, under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act would be only those as have been conferred by the Act. The provisions of Chapter XV of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 do not, therefore render any assistance to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for urging that the power of review can be exercised by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also in cases which arise under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act."
4. Per contra, Mr. Chawla, learned A.G.P. submitted that the review application was maintainable before the M.R.T. u/s 322 Land Revenue Code, 1966 for review of the order passed by the M.R.T. in appeal u/s 6 of the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the powers of review u/s 322 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are attached to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal irrespective of what jurisdiction it exercises and, therefore, the judgment laid down by the Court in Anupchand''s case does not lay down the correct law. In support of his submission Mr. Chawla has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in
5. In Anupchand''s case cited supra, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that when a power is exercised by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, the provisions of Chapter XV of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 would not be of any assistance and the power of review can be exercised by the Tribunal only under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act.
6. Chapter XV of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 deals with the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Section 309 provides that there shall be established for the State of Maharashtra a Tribunal to be called the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Once a Tribunal has been created under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the power of review u/s 322 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code would be attached to that Tribunal irrespective of what jurisdiction is exercised by the said Tribunal and under any Act. The power of review u/s 322 cannot be restricted and confined to orders passed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code only. In Raghunath''s (cited Supra), the Division Bench has held as under :---
"Now the first question is as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own order. It is perfectly true that a Tribunal or a Court has no inherent jurisdiction to review its own decisions. Such power must be conferred expressly by statute, and Mr. Chandrachud has drawn our attention to the fact that in the Bombay Tenancy Act which gives revisional powers to the Revenue Tribunal u/s 76, there is no provision with regard to review. Attention has also been drawn to sections 76 and 82 of the Act and that rule provides that in deciding appeals and applications for revision, in matters not provided for in these rules, the Tribunal shall so far as may be follow the procedure laid down under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in this connection Mr. Chandrachud is right when he contends that the provisions of the CPC are only made applicable in the actual hearing and deciding all appeals and applications for revision. This rule cannot confer any jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to entertain a review application which follows upon a decision in an appeal or in an application for revision. Then we have the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act (12 of 1939). It was by that Act that the Bombay Revenue Tribunal was set up and its powers and functions are defined in section 4 and the powers and functions there set out relate to revenue matters. Then we have section 7 which in terms expressly confers upon the Tribunal the power of review. But the contention of Mr. Chandrachud is that section 7 is limited by section 4 and the power of review is only conferred upon that Tribunal which exercises the powers and functions mentioned in section 4. Therefore, according to Mr. Chandrachud, when the Legislature conferred fresh powers upon the Revenue Tribunal by giving it revisional powers u/s 76 inasmuch as the Legislature did not confer upon the Tribunal the power to review its own decisions when exercising those revisional powers, it is not open to the Tribunal to fall back upon section 7 in order to find jurisdiction to review its own decisions. In our opinion, that is not the proper interpretation to put upon section 4 and section 7 of Act 12 of 1939. That Act sets up a new Tribunal and section 7 confers upon that Tribunal generally certain powers viz, the power and jurisdiction to review its own decisions. Section 4 defines its functions and so long as this Act stood on the statute book, the only functions which the Tribunal could discharge were the functions mentioned in section 4, and in discharging those functions it could exercise the power of review conferred upon it u/s 7. But when the Tenancy Act was passed, further functions were allocated to the Tribunal, and one of those functions was the power to act as a revisional body in certain tenancy matters specified in the Tenancy Act. But when the functions of the Tribunal were increased, the Tribunal still had the power to review its decisions conferred upon it u/s 7. The power to review conferred upon it u/s 7 was not limited to the exercise of the functions enumerated in section 4 but that power attached to the Tribunal as such and it could always be exercised by the Tribunal, whatever powers might be conferred upon it from time to time. Therefore, the power to review is the power that attaches to the Tribunal as such irrespective of what jurisdiction may be conferred upon it from time to time would not be correct to say that as section 76, Tenancy Act conferred a new power upon the Tribunal that power had to be exercised without the power of review conferred upon it u/s 7. As we said before, that power attached to the Tribunal as such and the Tribunal could review its own decisions in whatever capacity those decisions might be arrived at and whatever jurisdiction the Tribunal might be exercising. Therefore, in our opinion, when exercising its revisional powers u/s 76, the Tribunal has the power to review its own decision."
7. In my opinion, therefore, the judgment of this Court in Anupchand''s case (cited supra), cannot said to be laying down correct law and appears to be inconsistent with the Division Bench decision of this Court in Raghunath''s case (cited supra). The learned Single Judge while deciding Anupchand''s case did not take into consideration the Division Bench decision of this Court in Raghunath''s case (cited supra).
8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Anupchand''s case (cited supra) needs reconsideration by the Larger Bench of this Court and I, therefore, direct the Registry to place the matter before the Hon''ble The Chief Justice for constituting appropriate Bench to consider the correctness of the judgment of this Court in Anupchand''s case (cited supra), 1986 Maharashtra Law Journal, 521. Order accordingly.
Recommended to be referred to larger Bench.
