The Board of Revenue's jurisdiction in enhancing punishment and the maintainability of a declaratory suit.

Bardswell, J.

1. The appellant is the Secretary of State. The respondent was the karnam of a village in the Kistna District. He was dismissed on 4th October, 1921, by the Revenue Divisional Officer of Ellore for having got appointed as talayari, a young boy, whom he made use of as his own servant. On appeal the District Collector, on 2nd December, 1921, modified his punishment to one of suspension for a year. He then, very ill-advisedly, presented a second appeal to the Board of Revenue. He had, in fact, no right of appeal as under the proviso to Section 23(1) of Madras Act III of 1895 there can be a second appeal to the Board, on a matter of punishment, only in the case of a dismissal of a Village Officer. None the less the appeal was entertained by the Board which, apparently without hearing the present respondent, set aside the Collectors order of suspension and restored the original order of dismissal. The respondent then filed O.S. No. 699 of 1922 in the Court of the District Munsif of Kovvur praying for a declaration that the order of the Board of Revenue was invalid and ultra vires. The District Munsif, granted a decree as prayed for, but on appeal the Principal Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dismissed the suit, holding that the Board of Revenue had acted in the legitimate exercise of revisional powers which it derived from Section 5 of Madras Regulation I of 1803. On Second Appeal (No. 202 of 1926) 58 M.L.J. 698 Wallace, J. has restored the decision of the District Munsif, holding that Section 5 of Regulation I of 1803 did not give to the Board the power of revision which the first appellate Court had found that it possessed thereunder, neither did the Board have any inherent power, outside the Acts and Regulations, to interfere with and enhance the order of suspension which had been passed by the District Collector in this case. He has also held, in agreement with the two lower Courts, that the suit was maintainable.

2. That there was no right of appeal is conceded and cannot, indeed, be disputed in the face of the plain language of the proviso to Section 23(1) of Madras Act III of 1895. The Board of Revenue should not, therefore, have entertained the respondents appeal. It is, however, contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Board was in fact acting in the exercise of its revisional powers, though it did not in any way indicate that it was so doing, and that it got such powers from Section 5 of Regulation I of 1803 which section has never been abolished. Wallace, J. has dealt with this contention in his judgment and I would, with all respect, express myself as in entire agreement both with the conclusion which he has come to and the reasons that he has given therefor. Section 5 of Regulation I of 1803 runs thus:

The Board of Revenue have had, and are hereby declared to have, authority to superintend and control all persons employed in the executive administration of the public revenue; all Zamindars or proprietors of land paying revenue, and all farmers, securities, ryots or other persons concerned, in, or responsible for, any part of the revenue of Government as far as the said superintendence and control may relate to the executive administration of the revenue under the regulations now enacted, or to be hereafter enacted.

3. As has been pointed out by Wallace, J., the section gives to the Board no punitive powers over village officers but such power is given to it by Section 33 of the same Regulation, which empowers it to "punish neglect in the Subordinate Officers of Revenue according to the powers vested in them for that purpose". Under Regulation XXIX of 1802 it was laid down that karnams could only be dismissed from their offices by the sentence of a Court of Judicature. Power to dismiss karnams was given to the Board of Revenue by Section 7(3) of Regulation II of 1806, while by Regulation VI of 1831 the power theretofore exercised by the Board of Revenue over karnams in ryotwari tracts was