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 S. 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 S. 3 of Regulation VII of 1828. S. 1 of the Regulation expressly states that it applies to all the powers granted to Collectors by the Regulations now in force, or that may hereafter be enacted.
It is only by virtue of this Regulation that a Revenue Divisional Officer gets authority to exercise the powers of a Collector under Act III of 1895. Consequently the District Collectors 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.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
T.v. Srinivasa Ayyangar v. V. Jagannatha Ayyangar And Another
T.v. Srinivasa Ayyangar v. V. Jagannatha Ayyangar And Another
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Second Appeal No. 1232 Of 1932 | 28-07-1938
Advocate List
- For the Appellant K. Rajah Ayyar, Advocate. For the Respondents K.V. Sesha Ayyangar, Advocate.
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BURN
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LAKSHMANA RAO
Eq Citations
- (1938) 2 MLJ 488
- 1938 MWN 840
- AIR 1938 MAD 903
- LQ/MadHC/1938/210
Head Note
Land Acquisition and Requisition — Revision — Validity of — District Collector's power of revision under Regulation VII of 1828 — Whether it continues to exist — Held, it does — Revenue Divisional Officer can exercise powers of a Collector under Act III of 1895 only by virtue of Regulation VII of 1828 — Ss. 1 and 3 of Regulation VII of 1828 — Act III of 1895, S. 13
