These are applications to revise the orders of the Board of Reveuue passed, one under Sect. 172 of the Estates Land Act, and the others under Sect. 171 of the same Act. So far as the cases under Sect. 171 are concerned, the only point that is raised which relates to jurisdiction is that a single member of the Board of Revenue has not power to decide questions under those sections. However, under Sect. 2 of Madras Act I of 1894, it is enacted “It shall be lawful for the Board of Revenue to declare what portion of the business of the Board may be disposed of by a single member”. It is not suggested here that the Board has not allotted this branch of work to a single member and, therefore, that member had complete authority to deal with the matter. No other question of jurisdiction arises in the cases disposed of by the Board under Sect. 171.
So far as the order passed under Sect. 172 is concerned it is merely a preliminary order declaring that the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction in the present case under that section but no final order has yet been passed on the merits of the case. It is contended that on this question of jurisdiction this Court ought to interfere in revison in order to save further proceedings. It is not ordinarily the practice of this Court to interfere with orders of an interlocutory nature unless there is some special reason for doing so. Here the petitioner has come to this Court before he has any grievance and consequently we are not prepared to interfere at this stage. In this view it is unnecessary to decide the question whether this Court has jurisdiction to interfere in revision with the orders of the Board of Revenue under Sects. 171 and 172. All these petitions must be dismissed with costs.
Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 1346 to 1355 must also be dismissed.
K. V. S.Petitions dismissed.