TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether revisional power under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 could be exercised after a long delay to set aside an order granting permission for non-agricultural use; (ii) whether the revisional authority was bound to give reasons for its order; and (iii) whether a serious dispute as to title could be decided in revision by the revenue authority.
Issue (i): whether revisional power under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 could be exercised after a long delay to set aside an order granting permission for non-agricultural use.
Analysis: Section 211 contained no express period of limitation, but the power had to be exercised within a reasonable time. That reasonable time had to be gathered from the scheme of section 65, under which the Collector was expected to decide an application for conversion within three months and, failing that, permission would be deemed to have been granted. Reading the provisions together, the revisional power could not be exercised after such delay that the grantee would have proceeded to act on the permission.
Conclusion: The revisional order was passed too late and was not sustainable.
Issue (ii): whether the revisional authority was bound to give reasons for its order.
Analysis: A revisional order affecting rights under an already granted permission must disclose the reasons, even briefly, so that the affected party can challenge it further if necessary. A bare recital of contentions followed by a conclusion was insufficient.
Conclusion: The order was liable to be quashed for absence of reasons.
Issue (iii): whether a serious dispute as to title could be decided in revision by the revenue authority.
Analysis: Where a serious dispute regarding title arises before the Collector or the Commissioner, the proper course is to refer the parties to a competent civil court rather than to decide title in revenue proceedings against the occupant.
Conclusion: The revenue authority ought not to have adjudicated the title dispute itself.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional order failed, and the grant of permission in favour of the occupant was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power that has no express limitation must still be exercised within a reasonable time, and a revisional order affecting vested or acted-upon rights must be supported by reasons; serious disputes of title are not to be conclusively tried by revenue authorities in such proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
