TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (3) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad erred in holding that the Revenue Commissioner hearing a second appeal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of fact. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance was placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Prabhudayal v. State (1964 Rn 262). The learned single Judge, who heard the petition, was of the opinion that the restrictions on the powers of the second appellate Court provided by Section 36 of the M. B. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), applied to all the second appellate Courts and that the aforesaid decision of a Division Bench of this Court required reconsideration. Hence this Full Bench has been constituted to consider the aforesaid question. Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the provisions of Section 36 of the Act placed restrictions on the powers of the second appellate Court, only when a second appeal was heard by the Board of Revenue, as was evident by a perusal of the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. It was urged that in any event, the decision of this Court in 1964 Rule n. 262 (supra) should not be disturbed on the basis of the doctrine of 'stare decisis&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) a Collector; or (b) any Revenue Officer, subordinate to the Collector, who has been invested with the powers of the Collector to hear appeals under sub-section (1) of Section 35; (2) the Settlement Commissioner where an appeal has been disposed of by a Settlement Officer; (3) the Board where an appeal has been disposed of by the Commissioner of a Division or the Settlement Commissioner on any of the following grounds and no other; namely:-- (i) that the order is contrary to law or usage having the force of law; (ii) that the order has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law; (iii) that there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits : Provided that no second appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed under Section 319 of the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, Samvat 1983," It was conceded before us and rightly so, that the Hindi version of Section 36 of the Act left no room for any doubt that the restrictions on the powe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Act. The original Act is in Hindi and wherever there be any doubt, and, in fact, principally for purposes of properly interpreting any provision of such an enactment, the proper course is to look at the original Act as published in Hindi, In these circumstances, we looked up the Hindi version of this Act. On examining it, we find that there can be no doubt at all that the expression in English authoritative version in the form in which they were in force immediately before the commencement of this Act' qualifies the words "the notifications" in Section 3 of the U. P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958. The language in the Hindi version is as follows:-- (Portion in Hindi omitted. -- Ed.) If would, of course, have been better, had the meaning conveyed in the original Hindi version been put in the proper form in the English translation so as not to leave any ambiguity which could easily have been done if the expression on the date on which the notifications were issued had not been placed in this section at the place where this expression has been placed but had been placed earlier between the expression "as if the said, sections were" and the words "in force". If this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rged on behalf 'of the petitioners that it was not permissible to refer to the Hindi version of the Act. cannot be upheld. It seems that the Hindi version of Section 36 of the Act was not brought to the notice of the Court in 1964 Rule n. 2G2 (supra). In that case, the question for consideration was whether the second appeal preferred before the Commissioner was governed by the provisions of Section 44 of the M. P. Land, Revenue Code, 1959 or by Section 36 of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. The Court held that the appeal was governed by the provisions of Section 36 of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. The Court then observed as follows :-- "Under that provision, a second appeal lay to the Commissioner from an order made in appeal by an officer subordinate to the Collector without any restriction on the powers of the Commissioner in the disposal of the second appeal. It was only in the case of second appeals filed before the Board of Revenue against an order made in appeal by the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner that it was provided that a second appeal before the Board of Revenue would lie only on the grounds mentioned in Section 36 (3) of t....