1. The point urged by Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar in this appeal is that the proprietor in this case, the raja of Venkatagiri did not send up nomination lists within six weeks allowed him under Section 15 of Madras Act II of 1894. The Collector of the District found on enquiry as appears from his proceed, filed as Exhibits I:
That no such formal requisition was issued from his office, and the arrangements made in the marginally noted 21 village, which fall under paragraph 2 of Section 15 of the Act are ab intio void, and are therefore hereby cancelled.
2. Under Section 15 of the Act, it was the duty of the District Collector acting under Section 7 to give notice to the proprietor of his action and the proprietor shall thereupon dispense with the services of the officers no longer required and retain those, whom he might consider to be best qualified to discharge the duties of the offices and report his action within six weeks to the Revenue Officer in charge of the division. The statutory duty is cast upon the Collector to give notice to the proprietor of his action under S7. It cannot be stated that any notice by any subordinate of his fulfils the conditions laid down in Clause 2 of Section 15. As a proper notice is required to be given by Clause 2 of Section 15, the statutory obligation of the Collector cannot be dispensad with and nobody else can in his place give a valid notice as required by Clause 2. this case, a notice was given by the Sub-Collector on 13th May, 1913, to the proprietor, of what had been done by the Collector, and the proprietor was asked to make certain nominatious. He sent up his nominations, on 18th August, 1913. The Sub-Divisional Officer vetoed the nominations on the ground that the nominations were not made within six weeks of the receipt of notice by the proprietor. The proprietor and the nominees preferred an appeal to the Collector, who safe aside the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer as being void. It is argued by Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar that there is no appeal against the appointment made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, in the case of a reduction of the village establishment and he relies on Krishnaswami Naidu v. Akkulammal (1919) 9 L.W. 90. No doubt the Collector cannot hear an appeal against an appointment made under Section 15 of the Act, by the Revenue Officer in charge of the Division. But in this case, the appellant seeks to recover the office from the 2nd defendant, who had been appointed subsequently on the nomination of the proprietor The Collector, no doubt set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer as being void.
3. Whether that order is sanctioned by law or not, when the appellant comes before the Court, claiming the village office, on the ground of his having been validly appointed, it is his duty to make out that he has been validly appointed. Seeing that no notice was given as required by Section 15, Clause 2, by the Collector to the proprietor, before 21st August, 1913, the nomination sent up by the proprietor on 22nd August, 1913, was not out of time. As observed by the learned Judges in the case, reported in Tangutur Narasimham v. Singaraju Ramiah : (1920)38MLJ126 it is quite open for the Collector to call up nomination, on a new office being created, or reduction of the village establishment being effected. No notice having been given by the Collector, before 18th August, 1913, the proprietor was not called upon to make any nomination and any nomination made by him on 22nd August, 1913, could not be considered, therefore, to be out of time and the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer in vetoing the nomination of this officer and making any appointment without reference to the nomination of the proprietor, is certainly unwarranted and illegal ; and the appointment of the plaintiff, one of the persons, who were so appointed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, cannot be valid. When the plaintiff has not been validly appointed, he cannot claim the office from another person, who is in possession of it. The Subordinate Judge has correctly decided the case. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissad with costs.
4. It is brought to my notice that the plaintiff died and his legal representative has been brought on record. Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyangar says that even if the plaintiff had a right of action, his legal representative has no right of action. It is not necessary for me to consider this point, in view of my decision on the other point.