K NAGARATHNAMMAL Vs. S IBRAHIM SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 24-3-1950, Komaravelu Pillai, the permanent hereditary karnam of the village of Thadikombu in Dindigul taluk died leaving him surviving a widow by name Nagarathnanimal and a minor son, Vellaswami, aged about 12 years. By an order made on 4-9-1950, the Sub-Collector; Dindigul, registered Vellaswami as the permanent karnam and appointed one Ibrahim Sahib to be his deputy during the period of his minority. Against this order of appointing Ibrahim Sahib as Deputy, Nagaratnammal, preferred an appeal to the District Collector, Madurai. Her prayer to the Sub-Collector appears to have been that one Nagaratnam, a relation of hers, should be appointed deputy, By an order dated 28-10-1950 the District Collector set aside the appointment of Ibrahim Sahib on the ground that it was undesirable to appoint a Muslim as deputy of a Hindu minor. As Nagaratnammal had intimated that she was willing to nominate Nagaratnam the District Collector directed the Sub-Collector to examine the qualifications of the nominee and to appoint him if he was found suitable. Ibrahim Sahib, thereupon filed a revision petition to the Board of Revenue. Nagaratnammal appeared by counsel before the Board and raised the objection that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Collector. But by its order dated 25-4-1951 the Board overruled the objection of Nagaratnammal to its jurisdiction and set aside the order of the Collector and confirmed the appointment of Ibrahim Sahib as deputy. Nagaratnammal then preferred a revision petition to the Government, and the Government allowed the petition without notice to Ibrahim Sahib who thereupon came to this Court by a writ petition No. 173 of 1952 calling in question the order of the Government on the ground that it was passed without notice to him & therefore in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition was allowed on that ground and the matter remitted to Government for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

(2.) When the matter thus went back to the Government, they took the view that they had no revisional powers and declined to interfere. The result was that the order of the Board appointing Ibrahim Sahib as deputy stood. Nagaratnammal has therefore come to this court with this petition to quash the order of the Board on the ground, that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the District Collector. That petition came on in the first instance before one of us, namely, Rajagopala Aiyangar J. He observed:

(3.) That is how the matter now conies before us. The question we have to decide is whether the Board of Revenue has power to interfere with an order made by the District Collector under Section 10(5) of Madras Act 3 of 1895 -- the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 --appointing a deputy to a post registered in the name of a minor. To answer this question it is necessary pt the outset to examine the statutes that have a bearing on the powers of the Board and the Collector. The earliest of these is Regulation I of 1803. Up to that time the Board had a considerable amount of judicial authority in the determination of certain cases of a civil nature. The regulation" formally abrogated this judicial authority of the Board of Revenue in those districts where Zilla Courts had been established. Thereafter the preamble proceeds to state the further object of the Regulation: