MANE SATYANARAYANA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR WEST GODAVARI ELURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this appeal is whether the Collector could entertain a revision against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer appointing a particular person as a deputy to a minor registered under section 10(5) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895).

(2.) The appellant was appointed a deputy to a minor registered under that section. Against this order, a petition was filed before the Collector complaining that the Revenue Divisional Officer had not followed the instructions contained in the relevant Board's Standing Orders. Giving effect to this contention, the Collector reversed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and appointed the and respondent as the deputy. It is to quash that order that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in this Court by the appellant. Our learned brother, Bhimasankaram, J., following the decision in W.P. No. 75 of 1957, held that the District Collector's order was not without jurisdiction. It is this view that is canvassed before us in this appeal.

(3.) We think that the opinion expressed by the learned Judge is the correct one. Though the Collector has no appellate jurisdiction in this regard, he has ample authority to revise the orders of his subordinates in exercise of the powers conferred by the Collectors' Regulation VII of 1828. This position is clearly established by the decision in Sreenivasa Aiyangar v. Jagannadha Aiyangar, (1938)2 M.L.J. 488. To a similar effect is the ruling of the same Court in Seshagiri Sarma v. State of Madras, (1933)2 M.L.J. 462. The argument pressed upon us by Sri Krishmamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the authority of Seshagiri Sarma v. State of Madras, to which the learned Judge made reference, has been considerably shaken by the Judgment of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Nagarathnammal v. Ibrahim Sahib, (1955)2 M.L.J. 49 (F.B.). We do not accede to this submission. Far from overruling Seshagiri Sarma v. State of Madras the principle enunciated therein was approved by the Full Bench. The learned Judges in the Full Bench case posed the question, whether the District Collector had power to interfere with an order passed by the Divisional Officer, i.e., the 'Collector' under section 10 (5). They then adverted to the ruling Sreenivasa Aiyangar v. Jagannadha Aiyangar, which, in their opinion, enabled them to answer that question. The learned Judges referred to the following observations :- "The first paragraph of section 3 of Regulation VII of 1828 expressly states that it applies to 'all the powers granted to Collectors by the Regulation now in force or that may hereafter be enacted'.