Collector's partition orders remain appealable and revisable under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, absent express exclusion.

An order made by the Collector in partition proceedings under section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code remains appealable under section 203 and revisable under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code because the Collector acts as a revenue officer and the Code contains no express exclusion. The partition process involves operative decisions on division, allocation and delivery of possession, so appellate and revisional remedies are preserved. The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary, however, and may be refused where the petitioner is not genuinely aggrieved and appears to be using the petition to delay possession. The judgment therefore recognises the remedies but limits relief to the justice of the particular case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order made by the Collector in partition proceedings under section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code is appealable under section 203 and revisable under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. (ii) Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution where the Commissioner's refusal to entertain the appeal is found to be wrong in law, but the petitioners are not genuinely aggrieved.

Issue (i): Whether an order made by the Collector in partition proceedings under section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code is appealable under section 203 and revisable under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

Analysis: Section 203 extends to decisions or orders passed by a revenue officer under the Code or under any other law for the time being in force, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. The Collector is a revenue officer, and the Commissioner is his immediate superior. A partition effected by the Collector involves decisions and orders as to division, allocation, and delivery of possession, even though the authority exercised originates in section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code. The absence of any express exclusion in either enactment leaves the appellate and revisional remedies intact. The contrary view that no decision or order is involved was rejected, and the apprehension of conflict with the limited control of the civil court was held to be unfounded.

Conclusion: The order of the Collector in such partition proceedings is appealable under section 203 and revisable under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution where the Commissioner's refusal to entertain the appeal is found to be wrong in law, but the petitioners are not genuinely aggrieved.

Analysis: Although the Commissioner had erred in holding that he lacked jurisdiction, the High Court treated interference as discretionary. On the facts of the particular petition, the petitioners were found not to be genuinely aggrieved and to have approached the Court to delay delivery of possession. In those circumstances, intervention was refused in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere in that petition and left the Commissioner's order undisturbed, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirms appellate and revisional remedies against the Collector's partition orders, but relief under the Court's supervisory jurisdiction depends on the justice of the particular case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute allows an appeal from decisions or orders of a revenue officer under that Act or any other law and contains no express exclusion, an order made by the Collector while executing a civil court decree for partition remains subject to appellate and revisional control by the superior revenue authority.

---