Kumarappa Chettiar and Others vs Podisal and Another

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.—This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Collector u/s 205 of the Madras Estates Land

Act on a revision filed before him from an appraisement proceeding by the Deputy Collector under Sections 74 and 75 of the Act. The points for

decision before the Collector were, first of all, whether the application on the facts found by the Deputy Collector would lie u/s 74 of the Act, and

whether the applicant was the person entitled to ask for the appraisement assuming that the facts were in existence which would entitle the landlord

to invoke Section 74. The Deputy Collector heard the evidence and allowed the application of the petitioner here. The Collector in revision was of

opinion that the applicant was not entitled to file the application but he set aside the order of the Deputy Collector in respect of certain of the lands

referred to in the order on the ground that the tenants denied that the landlord had any right to collect melzvarmn and that this mere denial puts an

end to the power of the Deputy Collector to act u/s 73 of the Estates Land Act. I think the Collector is clearly wrong in the view that a mere denial

by the tenants ousts the jurisdiction under Sections 73, 74 and 75 of the Deputy Collector to make an enquiry. This part of the order is not

supported by the respondent. The powers of the Collector u/s 205 are limited and he cannot go into the weight of the evidence or decide the

matter as if it was an appeal on the facts to him. Section 205 gives him power to act only if the Revenue Officer appears to have exercised a

jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or while acting in the exercise of his jurisdiction to have

contravened some express provisions of law affecting the decision on the merits or where such a contravention has produced serious miscarriage

of justice. I think it is clear that before the Deputy Collector can act it must be shown that the petitioner was entitled to apply for appraisement and

if on the facts proved before him such a right is not proved the obvious course on revision would be to set aside the order as being one passed by

the Deputy Collector without jurisdiction.

Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar argues that the right of the petitioner has not been proved on the evidence on record. I think that this petition ought to go

back to the Collector for the purpose of ascertaining whether in his view the petitioner has proved his right to come before the Deputy Collector

for appraisement. If there is no evidence to support his right the order on the revision petition of the Collector would be to allow the revision if he

considers that there has been a miscarriage of justice. If the petitioner is found to be entitled to apply for appraisement it is clear that a mere denial

by the tenants would not affect his rights. I set aside the order of the Collector and remand the petition to him for disposal in the light of the above

observations. It is also contended that the Collector has not dealt with the other grounds raised before him in revision and the Collector will decide

all the points raised. Costs will abide and follow the result.