AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Byers, J.—The petitioner seeks to revise u/s 115 of the CPC an order by the Deputy Collector of the Musiri Division u/s 3(5) of the
Madras Estates Land Act. The respondent has a preliminary objection that revision does not lie because the Deputy Collector exercising his
functions u/s 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act is not a Court subordinate to the High Court. It is pointed out that the duty of the Deputy
Collector is only to recognise or nominate one or other of the disputants as the landholder, an expression denned in the first half of the sub-section.
Such recognition or nomination is only provisional and could be eon-tested in the ordinary civil Courts. In fact, Section 3(5) expressly states that
the Deputy Collector''s order is subject to any decree or order of a competent civil Court. The section makes no provision for any judicial enquiry
and the use of the words ""recognise or nominate"" indicates that the proceedings are purely of an executive or administrative character, involving
nothing more than the insertion in the revenue registers of the name of a person to whom the Collector looks for the payment of revenue and whom
he recognises, subject to the civil Court''s proceedings, as the person entitled to collect the rents.
I find that the Deputy Collector acting u/s 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act is not a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning
of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.