Skip to content


Damodara Nadar Vs. Manicka Vachaka Dasika Pandara Sannadhi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in3Ind.Cas.463
AppellantDamodara Nadar
RespondentManicka Vachaka Dasika Pandara Sannadhi
Cases ReferredRamsing v. Babu Kisansing
Excerpt:
revenue recovery act (mad. act ii of 1864) - power of collector to review his own order. - .....of 1828 the collector has power to interfere with an order passed by his subordinate confirming a sale, a power, which, under the regulation, is subject to no limitation of time, we are certainly not prepared to go further and say that a collector has power to review his own order, and that too without limit of time. no clear authority has been quoted in support of the existence of such power of review. the cases reported in badaricharya v. ramachandra gopal savant 19 b.k 113; ramsing v. babu kisansing 19 b.k 116 are under special acts and came before the court under section 622, civil procedure code, act xiv of 1882.' we are not prepared to hold on the strength of those decisions that the collector has the power of review. we also hold that the suit is neither barred by limitation nor.....
Judgment:

1. The suit lands were purchased by the plaintiff at an auction-sale for arrears of revenue on 12th June 1901, The sale was confirmed by the Deputy Collector on 16th August 1901 and on the 10th August 1901 the plaintiff was put in possession under Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act by the District Munsif. An application was made to the Collector on 8th May 1902 to set aside the sale, but the Collector, by his order dated 6th September 1902, declined to interfere. A review petition was then presented on 8th October 1902, and the Collector passed an order cancelling the attachment. This order is not happily worded, but we have no doubt that the Collector, by his order, meant that the sale was cancelled. The defendant then applied to the District Munsif for restitution, and the Munsif then put him in possession of the lands. The plaintiff now sues to recover possession of the lands. The point for determination is, whether the Collector, after declining to interfere with the sale, can review his own order. The power of review, which it is contended the Collector has, is not granted by any statute, and we are not aware of any principle on which it can be held that he has power to review his own order. Assuming that under Regulation VII of 1828 the Collector has power to interfere with an order passed by his subordinate confirming a sale, a power, which, under the regulation, is subject to no limitation of time, we are certainly not prepared to go further and say that a Collector has power to review his own order, and that too without limit of time. No clear authority has been quoted in support of the existence of such power of review. The cases reported in Badaricharya v. Ramachandra Gopal Savant 19 B.k 113; Ramsing v. Babu Kisansing 19 B.k 116 are under special Acts and came before the Court under Section 622, Civil Procedure Code, Act XIV of 1882.' We are not prepared to hold on the strength of those decisions that the Collector has the power of review. We also hold that the suit is neither barred by limitation nor by res judicata. We, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below and give plaintiff decree for possession. Under Order 20, Rule 12C we further direct the District Munsif to hold an inquiry as to the amount of mesne profits due from the institution of the suit till the occurrence of those events specified in Rule 12C. and to decree that sum to the plaintiff.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //