1. We do not think that the authority of Paramaswamy Aiyangar v. Alamelu Nachiar Ammal I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 76 : 35 M.L.J. 632 and Ramaswamy Goundan v. Kali Goundan I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 310 : 36 M.L.J. 571 has been in any way affected by the Full Bench in Raghunadha Patro v. Govinda Patro : (1928)55MLJ798 or by the decision of a larger Full Bench in Raja of Mandasa v. Jagannayakulu (1931) 63 M.L.J. 450 . The two Full Bench decisions were in cases in which the High Court considered the question of revising proceedings of the Board of Revenue under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act which deals with Survey Settlement and Record of Rights. The basis of the decision in the case of the Raja of Mandasa v. Jagannayakulu (1931) 63 M.L.J. 450 was that in exercising their functions under Chapter XI, the Revenue Authorities were not acting as Courts. But in disposing of suits for arrears of rent the Revenue Officers do act as Courts (Section 189 of the Act), and their decrees in such suits are appealable to the District Court. We agree with Ayling, J., in Paramaswamy Aiyangar v. Alamelu Nachiar Ammal I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 76 : 35 M.L.J. 632 that Section 209 of the Estates Land Act, 'is not, and cannot be intended to affect the revisional powers of this Court, in suits which are made appealable to the District Court and this Court under Part A of the Schedule. Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is one of the sections made applicable to suits under the Madras Estates Land Act by Section 192 of the latter.' We agree also with Ayling, J.'s observation in the same case that Section 205 relates 'not to incidental orders in suits, the final decree in which is appealable, but to such proceedings as are specified in Part B of the Schedule to the Act, as those in which no appeal lies (Nos. 12-20).'
2. In the present case the order of the Deputy Collector was not an order under any of the provisions of the Estates Land Act. It did not fall under any of the items specified as not appealable in Part B, of the Schedule. It was explicitly an order under Order 21, Rule 101, Civil Procedure Code, a provision of the Civil Procedure Code, which is applicable by Section 192 of the Estates Land Act. This was not an order which the District Collector could revise under Section 205 and in our opinion the application to him was incompetent, it was an order which could only have been revised by this Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.
3. For these reasons we are of opinion that the question referred to us should be answered in the negative. This Court could, for sufficient reasons have revised the order of the Deputy Collector under Order 21, Rule 101, Civil Procedure Code, but it cannot revise the order of the District Collector declining to interfere with the Deputy Collector's order.
4. The order of the District Collector dismissing the application to him under Section 205 was perfectly correct. He should, however have dismissed it as not being competent instead of on the merits. A dismissal order made on such an application cannot be revised by the High Court.
5. Reference answered in the negative and petition dismissed.