Back
1926 Supreme(Mad) 251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
The Zamindar Of Kallikote And
Versus
Mongolopur And Ors.
Decided On : 15 April, 1926
A single member of the Board of Revenue has the power to decide questions under Sections 171 and 172 of the Estates Land Act as long as the Board has allotted this branch of work to a single member.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Board of Revenue - The court held that a single member of the Board of Revenue has the power to decide questions under Sections 171 and 172 of the Estates Land Act as long as the Board has allotted this branch of work to a single member. The court also stated that it is not the practice to interfere with orders of an interlocutory nature unless there is a special reason for doing so.
Fact of the Case:
The applications were to revise the orders of the Board of Revenue passed under Sections 171 and 172 of the Estates Land Act. The court found that the single member of the Board of Revenue had the authority to decide questions under these sections and that the court would not interfere with orders of an interlocutory nature unless there is a special reason for doing so.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the single member of the Board of Revenue had the authority to decide questions under Sections 171 and 172 as long as the Board had allotted this branch of work to a single member. The court also stated that it would not interfere with orders of an interlocutory nature unless there is a special reason for doing so.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of a single member of the Board of Revenue to decide questions under Sections 171 and 172 of the Estates Land Act, and whether the court should interfere in revision with the orders of the Board of Revenue under these sections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a single member of the Board of Revenue has the power to decide questions under Sections 171 and 172 as long as the Board has allotted this branch of work to a single member. The court also stated that it is not the practice to interfere with orders of an interlocutory nature unless there is a special reason for doing so.
Final Decision: All the petitions were dismissed with costs, and the court found that it was unnecessary to decide whether the court has jurisdiction to interfere in revision with the orders of the Board of Revenue under Sections 171 and 172.
1. These are applications to revise the orders of the Board of Revenue passed, one under Section 172 of the Estates Land Act and the others under Section 171 of the same Act. So far as the cases under Section 171 are concerned, the only point that is raised which relates to jurisdiction is that a single member of the Board of Revenue has no power to decide questions under these sections. However, under Section 2 of the Madras Act I of 1894 it is enacted It shall be lawful for the Board of Revenue to declare what portion of the business of the Board may be disposed of by a single member.
2. It is not suggested here that the Board has not allotted this branch of work to a single Member and therefore that Member had complete authority to deal with the matter. No other question of jurisdiction arises in the case disposed of by the Board under Section 171
3. So far as the order passed under Section 172 is concerned, it is merely a preliminary order declaring that the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction in the present case under that section but no final order has yet been passed on the merits of the case. It is contended that on this question of jurisdiction this Court ought to interfere in revision in order to save further proceedings. It is not ordinarily the practice of this Court to interfere with orders of an interlocutory nature unless there is some special reason for doing so. Here the petitioner has come to this Court before he has any grievance and consequently we are not prepared to interfere at this stage. In this view it is unnecessary to decide the question whether this Court has jurisdiction to interfere in revision with the orders of the Board of Revenue under Sections 171 and 172. All these petitions must be dismissed with costs.
4. Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 1346 to 1355 must also be dismissed.
