AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Burn, J.—We do not think that the authority of Paramaswamy Aiyangar v. Alamelu Nachiar Ammal ILR (1918) Mad. 76 : 35 M.L.J. 632
and Ramaswamy Goundan v. Kali Goundan ILR (1918) Mad. 310 : 36 M.L.J. 571 has been in any way affected by the Full Bench in Ippili
Raghunadha Patro and Others Vs. Govinda Patro (dead) and Others, or by the decision of a larger Full Bench in Raja of Mandasa v.
Jagannayakulu (1931) 63 M.L.J. 450 . The two Full Bench decisions were in cases in which the High Court considered the question of revising
proceedings of the Board of Revenue under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act which deals with Survey Settlement and Record of Rights. The
basis of the decision in the case of the Raja of Mandasa v. Jagannayakulu (1931) 63 M.L.J. 450 was that in exercising their functions under
Chapter XI, the Revenue Authorities were not acting as Courts. But in disposing of suits for arrears of rent the Revenue Officers do act as Courts
(Section 189 of the Act), and their decrees in such suits are appealable to the District Court. We agree with Ayling, J., in Paramaswamy Aiyangar
v. Alamelu Nachiar Ammal ILR (1918) Mad. 76 : 35 M.L.J. 632 that Section 209 of the Estates Land Act, ""is not, and cannot be intended to
affect the revisional powers of this Court, in suits which are made appealable to the District Court and this Court under Part A of the Schedule.
Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is one of the sections made applicable to suits under the Madras Estates Land Act by Section 192 of the
latter."" We agree also with Ayling, J.''s observation in the same case that Section 205 relates ""not to incidental orders in suits, the final decree in
which is appealable, but to such proceedings as are specified in Part B of the Schedule to the Act, as those in which no appeal lies (Nos. 12-20).
In the present case the order of the Deputy Collector was not an order under any of the provisions of the Estates Land Act. It did not fall under
any of the items specified as not appealable in Part B, of the Schedule. It was explicitly an order under Order 21, Rule 101, Civil Procedure Code,
a provision of the Civil Procedure Code, which is applicable by Section 192 of the Estates Land Act. This was not an order which the District
Collector could revise u/s 205 and in our opinion the application to him was incompetent, it was an order which could only have been revised by
this Court u/s 115, Civil Procedure Code.
For these reasons we are of opinion that the question referred to us should be answered in the negative. This Court could, for sufficient reasons
have revised the order of the Deputy Collector under Order 21, Rule 101, Civil Procedure Code, but it cannot revise the order of the District
Collector declining to interfere with the Deputy Collector''s order.
Bardswell, J.
The order of the District Collector dismissing the application to him u/s 205 was perfectly correct. He should, however have dismissed it as not
being competent instead of on the merits. A dismissal order made on such an application cannot be revised by the High Court.
Reference answered in the negative and petition dismissed.