Order of the Court was delivered by

The Chief Justice.- In 1935 one Krishnamurthi who was then a minor was registered as the village headman of the village of Bijjiputti, Itchapuram taluk, Srikakulam district and the petitioner was appointed under section 10(5) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895) to discharge the duties of the office until the person registered as heir attained majority and qualified himself to discharge the duties of the office. In 1948, as the said Krishnamurthi did not qualify himself, he was removed from the office for which he had been registered and in the vacancy thus arising, the third respondent to this application, one Barla Surayya, was registered as the office holder. As he was a minor at the time, the petitioner himself was again appointed as the deputy of this Surayya by the Assistant Collector, Srikakulam. Subsequently, the mother and guardian of the minor, filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional officer on 9th March, 1949 making adverse allegations against the petitioner and praying that he may be removed and another person may be appointed to do the duties of the office. The Revenue Divisional Officer by his order dated 9th November, 1949 removed the petitioner and appointed one Barla Appadu in his stead. It is said that this order was passed without any enquiry and without any notice to the petitioner. Against this order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed what he calls an appeal to the District Collector, Vizagapatam, who by his order dated 9th June, 1950, set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and restored the petitioner to the position which he was occupying. Barla Appadu carried the matter to the Board of Revenue but the Board refused to interfere with the order of the District Collector. Appadu thereupon filed a petition before the Government of Madras and the Government passed the following order on 17th January, 1951:

“The Government have perused the connected records. They consider that in the best interests of the minor, the petitioner’s nominee should be appointed as the Deputy. They accordingly direct that Sri Barla Appadu be restored as Deputy Headman of Biggiputtiga village, ousting the present incumbent, Sri Bendlam Seshagiri Sarma. The petitioner is referred to the Board of Revenue for orders on her petition.”

Though this order was communicated to the mother and guardian of the minor, it does not appear to have been communicated to the petitioner himself. It is also clear that the petitioner was not given any notice before the said order was passed. Apprehending that in pursuance of this order of the Government, he may be removed from office, he rushed to this Court with an application for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the case and to quash the order of the Government. We have no hesitation in holding that the Government had no power whatever to pass any order in this matter. Appointments, dismissals and other matters of and pertaining to the hereditary village officers mentioned in the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act are governed entirely by the provisions of that statute. There is no provision in that Act conferring any power on the Government to interfere with the orders of any of the Subordinate revenue authorities entrusted with specified powers by the provisions of that Act. The learned Advocate-General referred us to the Board of Revenue Regulation under which it was said the Government have the power to interfere with certain orders of the Board of Revenue because the proceedings of the Board of Revenue are subject to the control and supervision of the Government. We do not desire to say anything about the powers of the Government to interfere with the orders of the Board of Revenue generally because we are convinced that the Board of Revenue itself had no power to interfere with the order passed by the District Collector in a case like the present. Under section 10(5) of the Act, it i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document