Reilly, J.

1. The questions referred to us are

(1) whether the High Court has power to interfere with a decision of the Board of Revenue under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act,

(2) whether the Board of Revenue has in this particular case exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it, and

(3) what should be "the final order to be passed in this case," i.e., on this revision petition.

2. It appears that under Section 164 of the Estates Land Act the Local Government ordered that a survey should be made and a record-of-rights should be prepared for 21 villages in the Mandasa Zamindari in the Ganjam district, which was done. On an application made by the ryots of the villages the Local Government afterwards ordered under Section 168 of the Act that a settlement of rent should be made for the villages. The Revenue Officer appointed for the purpose settled the rents for the villages. The ryots being dissatisfied, appealed against his orders to the Board of Revenue, which had been appointed by the Local Government to be the appellate authority for the purpose under Section 171 of the Act. Their appeal was dismissed as time-barred. Later on however the Board of Revenue in consequence of representations made on behalf of the ryots to His Excellency the Governor took the matter up in revision, purporting to proceed under Section 172 of the Act, and ordered a general reduction of the rents settled by approximately 3 annas in the rupee. The Zamindar has presented this petition to this Court for the exercise of revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 107 of the Government of India Act in respect of that order of the Board of Revenue.

3. The petition came on before Wallace and Tiruveukata Achariyar, JJ., and it was contended before them for the ryots that this Court has no power to revise such an order of the Board of Revenue either under the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Government of India Act. It was not necessary for the ryots to contend that this Court had no power to revise any order made by the Board of Revenue under the Estates Land Act. Their contention was, I understand, that an order made by the Board of Revenue under Section 172 of the Estates Land Act, which is part of Chapter XI of the Act, was not subject to revision by this Court. In Appanna v. Latchayya I.L.R. (1923) 47 M. 250 : 45 M.L.J. 735 Spencer, J., was of opinion that the Board of Revenue, when acting under Section 171 or 172 of the Estates Land Act, was not a Court subject to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Devadoss, J., in that case appears to have been of opinion that the Board of Revenue when making an order under Section 171 or 172 of the Estates Land Act was a Court and that its proceedings were subject to revision by this Court. But the learned Judges agreed in disposing of the case before them on another point. In Valluri Narasimha Rao v. The Ryots of Peddamamidipalli I.L.R. (1925) 49 M. 49 Devadoss and Waller, JJ., decided that the High Court had power to revise an order made by the Board of Revenue on appeal under Section 171 of the Estates Land Act, and Devadoss, J., expressed the opinion that the High Court had also power to revise an order made by the Board under Section 172 of the Act. In Raghunadha Patro v. Govinda Patro (1928)55MLJ798 the following question was referred to a Full Bench, viz. Has the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction either under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 107 of the Government of India Act of 1919 power to revise orders passed by the Board of Revenue under Chapter XI or Section 205 of the Estates Land Act?

4. Phillips and Odgers, JJ., answered the whole question in the negative and so declared that the decision in Valluri Narasimha Rao v. The Ryots of Peddamamidipalli I.L.R. (1925) 49 M. 499 was wrong. But the remaining member of the Bench, Venkatasubba Rao, J., declined to answer the question so far as it referred to Chapter