Skip to content


Mangineddi Varadiah Chetty Vs. the Province of Madras Represented by the District Collector of Chittoor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1941)2MLJ564
AppellantMangineddi Varadiah Chetty
RespondentThe Province of Madras Represented by the District Collector of Chittoor
Cases ReferredCouncil v. Kasturi Reddi
Excerpt:
.....cannot be reviewed by civil courts, even though the orders may be wrong, or can be shown to be..........objecting to the assignment and stating that the land was required for communal purposes. the revenue divisional officer made a local inspection and found the objection to be well-founded. the collector took the report of the revenue divisional officer under consideration and apparently gave notice to the appellant asking him to show cause why the darkhast should not be cancelled, for, the order speaks of a petition dated 20th january, 1937 from the appellant which is later than the report of the revenue divisional officer. he also heard the appellant's pleader and ultimately made the order complained against which is in these terms:on inspection the revenue divisional officer, chittoor has found the assignment of survey no. 9-1 diguvamasappella village in chittoor taluk.....
Judgment:

Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.

1. The plaintiff challenges the act of the Collector of Chittoor cancelling a darkhast assignment made in his favour by the Tahsildar. He says that the cancellation was illegal and ultra vires the powers of the Collector. Having lost in both the Courts below, he has preferred this Second Appeal.

2. The contention advanced for him is that the revisional power vested in the Collector under Board's Standing Order 15, Sub-rule (18) can be exercised by him only if certain conditions therein specified are satisfied but that in this case he exceeded his revisional jurisdiction because no such conditions were satisfied as a matter of fact.

3. After the Tahsildar had granted the land on darkhast to the appellant, a petition is said to have been filed by some of the villagers objecting to the assignment and stating that the land was required for communal purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer made a local inspection and found the objection to be well-founded. The Collector took the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer under consideration and apparently gave notice to the appellant asking him to show cause why the darkhast should not be cancelled, for, the order speaks of a petition dated 20th January, 1937 from the appellant which is later than the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. He also heard the appellant's pleader and ultimately made the order complained against which is in these terms:

On inspection the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor has found the assignment of Survey No. 9-1 Diguvamasappella village in Chittoor Taluk objectionable as it is required for communal purposes. The assignment is therefore cancelled.

4. In other words he accepted the Revenue Divisional Officer's report and acted on it, being satisfied that the land was required for such purposes.

5. Communal land or land required for communal purposes cannot be granted on darkhast. Such a grant made by the Tahsildar can certainly be described as inequitable or exceeding the powers of the Tahsildar. If the Tahsildar believed that it was not required for communal purposes, while really it was, it would be a case of the order being passed under a mistake of fact. These are some of the conditions specified in sub-rule (18) of Standing Order 15; and it is futile to say that the Collector exceeded his powers in revision in cancelling this assignment for the reasons mentioned by him.

6. Civil Courts have clearly no jurisdiction in such matters and the orders of the revenue officers acting within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction cannot be reviewed by civil Courts, even though the orders may be wrong, or can be shown to be wrong. This was laid down even in the Secretary of State for India in Council v. Kasturi Reddi : (1902)12MLJ453 which is frequently relied on by parties in the position of the present plaintiff. The view taken in the 26 Madras case was really responsible for the change in the Board's Standing Orders conferring revisional jurisdiction on the Collector.

7. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.

8. (Leave to appeal is refused).


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