The High Court has revisional jurisdiction over the orders of the Board of Revenue under Sections 171 and 172 of the Estates Land Act. The Revenue Officer, in settling a fair and equitable rent, is not bound by the provision of Section 30 of the Act.

1. The revenue officer for the settlement of rents in the villages of Kalagampudi and Pedamamipalli, Narasapur Taluk, Kistna District made a record of rights under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act. The appeal of the proprietor of....Pedamamipalli to the Board of Revenue against the record of sights made by the revenue officer has been dismissed. He now moves the High Court to revise the order of the Board of Revenue.

2. Two points arise for decision in this case : (1) Has the High Court revisional jurisdiction over the orders of the Board passed under Sections 171 and 172 of the Estates Land Act ? and (2) If the question of jurisdiction is answered in the affirmative, should the High Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction in this case ?

3.The first point has been fully argued by Mr. Ramadoss for the petitioner and Mr. Venkatrayaliah for the respondents. We have also heard the Government Pleader to whom we gave notice to appear for the Board of Revenue as it was represented to us that a number of civil revision petitions were pending in the High Court in which the question of jurisdiction was involved. After a careful consideration of the arguments in the case I see no reason to change my view expressed in Appann v. Latchayya A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 119. I do not wish to repeat here the reasons which I gave in that case, but will deal briefly with the arguments of the learned Government Pleader.

4. His contention is that the Board of Revenue is no a civil Court and jurisdiction is given to it under the Estates Land Act to hear appeals from and to revise the orders of the Collector and the Settlement Officer and the High Court cannot revise the orders of the Board of Revenue either under Section 118, Civil P. C, or under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915. His argument is based upon the observations made by the learned Chief Justice in Abdul Sattar Sahib v. Special Deputy Collector, Vizagapatam A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 442. In that case it was held that the High Court could not interfere in revision with the order of a land acquisition officer who refused to refer a case to the District Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. As the decision is that of a Pull Bench I am bound by it ; but I may be permitted to remark : Why could not the High Court interfere with the order of a land acquisition officer if he refused to refer a case to the District Court when the High Court has jurisdiction to determine any question that may arise on a reference being made ? In other words, if the land acquisition officer makes a reference to the District Court an appeal lies from the District Court to the High Court; but if he does not refer the case to the District Court the High Court is said to have no power to direct him to refer the case to the District Court. If a Collector refused to refer a case to the civil Court, he does something which he ought not to do, and the High Court which has the power to hear and determine matters, on a reference being made to the District Court, cannot be said to have no power to direct the Collector to do what he is bound to do. However, as that case has no application to the present, I refrain from making any further comment. The decision in Parthasarathi Naidu v. Koteswara Rao A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 561 (F.B.), has no application to the present case. According to that decision, where the Legislature erects a tribunal for the purpose of determining any question which arises under a particular enactment, the High Court cannot interfere with the decision of that tribunal unless the High Court is empowered under the enactment which erected the tribunal to hear appeals from such tribunal or unless the enactment erecting the tribunal makes it a civil Court within the meaning of Clause 16 of the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court.

5. When a Settlement officer makes a record of rights under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act, he determines the right of the parties; in other words he determines t