RYOTS OF GARABANDHA, SARIAPALLI AND RAMACHANDRAPURAM VILLAGE, GARABHANDHA GROUP, PARLAKIMIDI ESTATE REPRESENTED BY PEDDINI RAMALINGAM SUBUDHI Vs. ZAMINDAR OF PARLAKIMIDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners ask for a certificate permitting an appeal to His Majesty in Council. They claim to be entitled to a certificate under Clause (b) or failing that under Clause (c) of Section 109 of the Civil P. C.. The petitioners desire to appeal from an order of this Court refusing to issue a Writ of Certiorari to the Madras Board of Revenue. Proceedings were taken place under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act and as the result of those proceedings the Board of Revenue enhanced the rents of three villages by 37? per cent. The petitioners contended that by reason of Section 168(2) read with Section 30(b) of the Act, the power of the Board of Revenue was limited to an enhancement of 12 1/2 per cent. This Court refused to order a writ to issue as it considered that the argument advanced was a fallacious one and had previously been rejected by this Court in Valluri Narasimha Rao V/s. The Ryots of Peddamamidipalli (1925) I.L.R. 49 Mad. 499. If the present application were made merely under Section 109(c) of the Civil P. C., we should not be prepared to grant the certificate; but as we consider that the case does fall within Clause (b) of the section, the certificate will issue.

(2.) Under Clause (b) a litigant has the right of appeal to His Majesty from any decree or final order passed by a High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. It is conceded by the learned advocate for the respondent that the issue of a Writ of Certiorari means the exercise of original jurisdiction, but he says that it does not mean the exercise of "original civil jurisdiction" within the meaning of the clause. The distinction here is between "civil" and "criminal". The order complained of referred to a civil matter as opposed to a criminal matter, namely, a decision of a Revenue Court in a revenue case. It was admittedly passed in the exercise of original jurisdiction and in the circumstances it could only have been passed in the exercise of civil jurisdiction. Therefore it was an order passed in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction.

(3.) I might add that the order of the Board of Revenue which these applicants wished to have set aside directs the payment of large sums by way of increased rents. The order affects the applicants to the extent of Rs. 31,503-12-0 and it is not disputed that it is the intention of the Board of Revenue to extend the enhancement to the other villages of the Zamindari which when carried out will mean an annual increase in the rents of the tenants by overRs. 1,50,000 annually. The amount involved is, therefore, very considerable. The certificate will issue on the usual conditions.