Rajah Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Perianayagum Pillai, 1874 1 IA 209 the Privy Council was dealing with reports made by Collectors acting under Regulation 7 of 1817 of the Madras Presidency and it was held that the report of the Collectors may not be of great judicial authority so far as the opinions expressed on private rights of the parties but being the reports made under a statutory Regulation they were entitled to be of considerable importance. The reason why the Privy Council attached great credence to these reports was that the reports when referred to the Collector were based on the depositions taken by him (Collector) and other documents on the basis of which he had given his report. Furthermore, the Board of Revenue accepted the report of the Collector and made a minute approving the same and observing that there was no question of doubting the validity of the report. In this connection, the Privy Council observed thus:
“This new dispute was referred to the then collector, Mr Wroughton. His report upon it is dated January 7, 1834. It appears that he examined the depositions sent to the collectorate in 1815, and other documents, and he records the facts which, in his opinion, are adverse to the claims made on the part of the zamindar. He also reported in favour of the title of the pandaram Venkatachellum to the office.
* * *
But being the reports of public officers made in the course of duty, and under statutable authority, they are entitled to great consideration so far as they supply information of official proceedings and historical facts, and also insofar as they are relevant to explain the conduct and acts of the parties in relation to them, and the proceedings of the Government founded upon them.”
