(1.) This matter having been referred to by the office for orders of Court raises the question whether a revision under Section 115 C. P. C against the orders of the District Judge in appeal against the order of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer lies to this Court.
(2.) The facts leading to the case are as follows: The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Vizianagram dismissed the petition filed before him by the petitioner herein under Section 12 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 and thereby refused the grant of the Ryotwari patta in respect of the lands said to be concerned in O. S. No. 216/2-B and 2-C. An appeal is taken as against this order to the Estates Abolition Tribunal as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 viz., the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, as he was the Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. This petition against that decision of the tribunal is filed purporting to be under Section 115 C. P. C.
(3.) TO the objection raised by the office that the Tribunal who heard the appeal viz the District Judge, Visakhapatnam is not a Court and that therefore the High court cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C. P. C. Mr. Kodandaramiah, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner, raised the contention that inasmuch as the Tribunal which heard the appeal had all the powers of a Civil Court it was subordinate to the High Court.He argued at length that if the Tribunal is considered as a Court for any purpose, it necessarily follows that its order could be revised by this Court. But an examination of the position with reference to decided cases does not lend support to the contention of the learned counsel. On the other hand, questions arising out of his contentions have, in my view, already been authoritatively decided by judicial pronouncements and that in view of those decisions, it is not open any longer to consider the questions afresh.