Skip to content

T.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar Vs. V. Jagannatha Aiyangar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad903; (1938)2MLJ488
AppellantT.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar
RespondentV. Jagannatha Aiyangar and anr.
- the same regulation, unless it is expressly taken away must be held to continue. this appeal is accordingly dismissed with.....

1. We agree with the learned District Judge that there is no conflict between Regulation VII of 1828 and Act III of 1895. The right of suit which is given by Section 13 of Act III of 1895 is not in any way inconsistent with the continuance of the power of 'superintendence, control and revision' given to the District Collector by Section 3 third of Regulation VII of 1828. Section 3 first of the Regulation expressly states that it applies to 'all the powers granted to Collectors by the Regulation now in force or that may hereafter be enacted'.

2. It is only by virtue of this Regulation that a Revenue Divisional Officer gets authority to exercise the powers of 'Collector' under Act III of 1895. Consequently the District Collector's power of revision created by the same Regulation, unless it is expressly taken away must be held to continue. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

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