o : 'i.Z^Z-] ) ^^.;.^----- m9*w-^'^'":... .A«su»oa! BYNb'nFICAT!ONNO,^S(yO^W<x^ B/GA/ceAS SPEC<3KS!!'!^>®aA£ '?&a'OFfHE'COORT FEES ACT 1870. R.toA.R.y) AMENDED APPEAL IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COVRTOF CHHAmSGAIlH AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. 223 OF 2009 WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPBAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT.^006 Appellaats (Res. No. 1 SB 2) Respondent (Petitioner) .J-A 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Collector, Distt. Surguja, Ambikapur Versus Gupteshwar Prasad Sinha, S/o Shri Badri Narain Lal, Ex- Patwari, R/o Village Godhanpur (Funder Dihari, Tehsil, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja /^s HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARK AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. JJ. W.A.No.223 OF 2009 ADDelkints/ Resoondents Respondent Petitioner Vs State of Chhattisgarh <& another ©upteshwarPrasad Sinha Present: Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, ©overnmentAdvocate for the appeltants. Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate with Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL JUD6MENT (Passed on 5th April. 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. This writ appeal has^een filed against the order dated 21.07.2008 passed in M.C.C. (5) No.36/2005 whereby the learned Single Judge hasset aside the order dated 24.6.1998 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short *the tribunal') and allowed the Transfer Application No.1349/98 of the respondent herein. 3. At the very outset, it is necessary to mention the relevant brief facts of the case. The respondent herein initially filed a civil suit which after formation of the tribunal under the Administrative Tribunats Ac't was transferred to the tribunal and" registered as T.A. No.1349/89. The tribunal heard the said appli.cation and dismissed the sqffle vide order dated 24.6.1998 against which the respondent herein has filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P. No.4157/98. The said writ petition was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.12.1998 with the observation that it would be open for the petitioner/respondent herein to \ seSS"&. approach the tribunal ond if the petitjoner/r^span^entherein approaches the tribunal ond the trjbunal entertainsthe review or clarification application, then the petitjoner/respondent herein would also be at liberty to argue the other aspects of the matter relating to the application dated 23.6.1982. 4. Thereafter, the resppndent herein filed a review petition a9ainst the prder dated 24.6.1996before the tribunal and the same was registered as M.A.No.21/99. Unfprtunately, the tribunal was abolished by the 6overnment of Indiayide Notification dated 17.04.2003 and thereafter an Adhiniyam namely "M.P. Rajya Prashasanik Adhikaran (Lambit Evam Nirakrat Avedano Ka Antaran) Adhiniyam, 2003" (for short 'the Adhiniyam'), published jn the Extraordinary ffazette dated 25.8.2003, which came into force w.e.f. 12.5.2003. was promulgated for tr-ansfer of cases pending before the abolished tribunal. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam provides thus:- "3. Transfer of pBnding and disposed off cases and opplications.- (1) Any plaint or other proceeding which was transferred by any Civil Court and is pending on the appointed day before the Tribunal shall stand transferred back to the same Civil Court from which it was transferred and in case such Court is not in existence then to the court of competent jurisdiction in its place and such Court shall proceed to dispose off the same as if it were a plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No.5 ot 1908). (2) Every proceeding whjch was transferred by the High Court to the Trjbunal and is pending on the appointed day before the Tribunal shall stand transferred back to the HJgh Court. (3) Every proceeding of a case which was filed as an application in the Tribunal and is pending on the .tj!i;' ^>,.w apppinted day before the said Tribunal shalj stand transferred.to the High Court. (4) Every proceeding relating to contempt, execution or review of final order pf jnterim order pending before the Tribunal on the appointed day shaiF stand transferred to the High Court. (5) The record of all cases/applications decided by the Tribunal upto appointed day shail stand transferred to the High Court and District Courts respectively." 5. Since, in the instant case, the civil syitwas trgnsferred to the tribunal and the tribunal decided the same finallY as transferred application.as mentioned above,the syit no more remain pending ond as such, there was no question of transferring the same back to the Civil Court and at the time when this Adhiniyam, 2003 came into force only review petition was pending before the tribunal. The transfer wcs made effective under sub-section (4) of Section 3, as quoted above, which provides that "'every proceeding of a case which was filed as an application in the tribunal and is pending on the appoin+ed day before the said tribunal shall stand trqnsferred to the High Courf. However, needless to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of Indio 4 others reported in (1997) 3 $CC 261 has laid down certain norms with regard to the decision to be taken by the High Court in respect of judgments of the tribunal by way of scrutiny. Para-93 of the said judgmenf is relevant and the same is quoted herein below:- "93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise oyr conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Trjbunals are competent to hear matters where the.vires of statytory provisions .'pauj33uo3 |DunqiJ^ ai|4. f.0 uot+atpsunr 344. 6ui>|oo|jaAO Aq (pa6ua||Dt|3 si |DUnqjJj^ jo|n3!+^nd 344. sa+oajo i|3!t|'» uoi+oisiSai ai|+ ajat|M 'pauoi4.U3Ui so '+dasxa) suOi+DisiBai Xjo+n+o+s j.o sajjA at|+ uoi+sanb Aaq+ ajai|M sasoo ui uaAa s^noy i|6j(-| 3t|+ t|3DOjdda A|+33J!p 04. s+uo6!+!| .10^. uado aq 4.ou||iM +l 4.oi|+ uoaui -aM'si^ Ag 'pa+n+i+suoo uaaq aAoi) Aai|+ i|3!t|M -iof. MO| j.o soajn 344. j,o +33dsaj ui asuB+sui +s4f4 40 s+^hoi> A|UO at|4. so +30 o+ anui+uoo '^aAaMoi) '||IM s|Duriqi>ii at|4. 4.Dt|+ ppo ^oiu ^M "st-ino^ t|6i|-| aAi+oadsa^ Jiat|+ j.o ijsuag UOISIAIQ a ajoj.aq Aui+n^os o+ +3afqns aq OS|D ||!M 'ssn+n+s 4.ua^od jiai|4. j.o an+^iA Xq uodn a+Doipnrpo o+ pajaModuia A\\vsif,\33ds ajo Aai|+ 4.oi|4. sasoo ui pa^apu3j 's|ouncj!^^ asat|4. j.o suoisioap Jaij+o ||y 'A[4.3ajip pai|3o6jddb sq ^DIU pauuaauoa +^003 ifGiH ai|4. 'auo|D sasno t|3ns ui •|ouoi4.n4.!+suo3un aq 04. i.yy AjaA +ot)+ 3JD|33p 4.0uuo3 +ay UD .j.o ajn+uajo D si ti^iqM |Dunqu^ D 4.0t)4. 3|d|3uud pa|4.4.as ai|+ 6u!MO||oj. sa+n+o+s 4-uajDd J!ai|+ f-o SSJIA ai|+ DuipJoSaj uoi+sanb AUD uiBj.J84.ua 4-ou ||»i|S S|ounqij^ aq^ 'uoi+daaxa +UD4.^oduii auo 04. 4,9a1*qns aq ||!M S|ounqui at|+ j.o jswod sitj+ '.laAaMOK •sa|n^ puo suo!+o|S!6a| 3+ouipjoqns ^,0 sajiA ai|++sa+ °+ JaMod 8ll+ aAX»i| OS|B A|4.uanbasuo3 ||IM s|OunqM^ ai|j^ -s+jnoy t|6!|-| aAi+aadsaj aL|+ ^.o t|3uag uoisiAtQ c aj0j,aq Xui+nj^s o+ 4.3afqns aq ||IM s|Dunquj^ ai|+ 40 suoisjoap i|3ns ||opuD A^o+uauis|ddns A|UO .si +38dsaj S!i|+ ui uoi+ounj, Jisiii •uoi4.o6i|qo uo t|3ns i|4.!«> pa+snj+ua A||D3!j.!:»ads uaaq 'dn-+as jouoi+n+i+suoo jrio japurt 'aAoi] I|?II|M +^003 auojdns ai|+ puo S+jno^ i)6![-| at|4. •lo^sa+n+i+sqns sv 4.310 4.ouuc3 Aai)4. l~^np sjt|+ Buifi.iotjosi.p ui 'jaAamo|-| -pauoi+sanb ajo :^^s;:;' 6. Therefore, any matter in which the High Court had.to make scrutiny of the judgment of the tribunal, the same would be decided by the Division Bench of the Hi9h Court. 7. Since in the instant matter there was a judgment of the tribunal existing and review petjtion was transferred to the Hjgh Court and the High Court had to make scrutiny of the judgment of the tribunal, therefore, in view of,.th£ law iaid down in L. Chandra Kumas''s case (supra), the same was to be deCiEled by the Division Bench. 8. In this context, it is necessary to mention that in case the claim or original petition or any intertm matter pending in the tribunal was to be transferred to the High Court, the directions contained in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) would not have been applicable, but in case of scrutiny of the judgment of the tribunal, it was necessary to consider the same by the t>ivjsion Bench ofthe 1-lighCourt. 9. In the instant case, the review petition was registered as M.C.C. (5) No.36/2005 and listed before the learned Single Judge who referred the matter to the Division Bench vide order dated 09.08,2007 and the then 1-lon'ble Actin9 Chief Justice approved the tisting of case before the Division Bench. However, when the case was listed before the Division Bench, the same was again transferred to the tearned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge decided the same accordingly. However, the directibns issued in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supru) were not pointed out by any of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. lO.The judgment of the 1-lon'ble Apex Court is law of land and has to be followed by everyone inasmuch as judicial forums are concerned. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has specificalty directed th<xt scrutiny of judgment of the tribunal witl be made by the Division Bench of the High o 6 Court and as such the same could not have been made by the learned Single Judge in the instant case. 11. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the tribunal and allowed the transfer application which coutd not have been done without making scrutiny of the judgment of the tribunal and as such the learned Sjngle Judge had no jurisdictjon to pass the impugned order in viewof the L. Chandra Kumar's case. 12. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge and direct that MCC (S) No.36/2005 shall be restored to its original number and shall be listed before the Divisjon Bench for hearing as early as possible. 13. The writ appeal is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. ~~ Sdl- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^F.n/-