Collector of North Arcot and Another vs Nagi Reddi

The question is whether the karnam in a permanently settled zamindari is a village servant employed in revenue duties within the meaning of

Section 52 of Act II of 1864. It has been held by the District Judge that the Section does not apply to such karnams, but only to karnams in

unsettled districts. It is clear that independently of Regulation XXIX of 1802, the karnam was, as be is now admittedly everywhere except in lands

settled under Regulation XXV of 1802, a revenue servant. By the preamble of Regulation XXIX of 1802, passed after the passing of Regulation

XXV, it is declared that the office of karnam is still of great importance, and that it is expedient to provide for the continuance of it, and the

Regulation goes on to indicate the duties which are to be performed by the karnam. Some of those duties are duties which may aptly be called

revenue duties. The Regulation VI of 1831 further tends to show that these karnams were regarded as revenue servants, for the Regulation relates

to hereditary village and other offices in the Revenue and Police departments, and by the last Section it is expressly provided that the Regulation

shall not apply to karnams holding office under Regulation XXIX of 1802. We cannot agree with the District Judge in the view he has taken of the

question, and must reverse the decree and remand the appeal to be dealt with according to law. Costs are to be provided for in the revised

decree.