AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajagopalan, J.—Nelliyadikkadu village in Pattukkottai taluk, Tanjore district, was notified as an estate to which the provisions of the
Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, XXX of 1947, would apply, and it was followed up on 6th May 1953, by a notification issued u/s
3 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. Under the latter notification, the estate vested in the
Government on 27th May 1953, on which date the Government took over the village. The Petitioner was the owner of that estate. He held large
extents of private lands in that estate. On 21st October 1953, the Petitioner was served with a notice of demand, which showed that he was in
arrears to the extent of Rs. 4,585-8-0 payable by him as arrears of land revenue for fasli 1362. The notice specified 10th April 1953, as the date
on which the payment fell due. It should be remembered that the notification u/s 3 of Act XXVI of 1948, was later in point of time; the notified
date itself was 27th May 1953.
The Petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to restrain the
Respondent from collecting the amount of Rs. 4.585-8-0, demanded of the Petitioner by the notice, dated 21st October 1953.
It was common ground that this amount of Rs. 4,585-8-0, demanded as revenue that had accrued to the Government in fasli 1362 included (i)
the land revenue payable u/s 23(b) of Act XXVI of 1948 on what were the private lands of the Petitioner, and (ii) the charges payable under the
Irrigation Cess Act for the irrigation of some of those lands in fasli 1362. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent-Government agreed that the
liability of the Petitioner, if any, under the Irrigation Cess Act need not be decided in these proceedings.
The plea of the Petitioner was that since the estate vested in the Government on 27th May 1953, towards the close of the fasli year 1362,
nothing was payable by the Petitioner as land revenue for fasli 1362. In any event, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended, the notice of
demand served upon the Petitioner on 21st October 1953, was incorrect when it specified 10th April 1953, as the date on which the land revenue
fell due. That was anterior to the date on which the estate vested in the Government u/s 3 of Act XXVI of 1948. That the claim that the land
revenue fell due on 10th April 1953, was incorrect was not disputed by the learned Advocate-General. In the normal circumstances, that itself
should suffice to set aside the notice of demand by the issue of a writ of certiorari. Further coercive proceedings could not have been taken validly
under the Revenue Recovery Act on a notice of demand which contained so material an error.
The question, is, when did the Petitioner become liable to pay land revenue on what were his private lands in an estate taken over by the
Government under the provisions of Act XXVI of 1948? Since the estate in question was an inam estate, it was u/s 13 that the Petitioner, as the
quondam owner of the abolished inam estate, became entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of his private lands. Section 13 expressly says that it is
with effect on and from the notified date that the landholder becomes entitled to a ryotwari patta. The notified date in the case of the Petitioner''s
estate was 27th May 1953. Section 16(1) runs:
Every person, whether a landholder or a ryot, who becomes entitled to a ryotwari patta under this Act in respect of any land shall with effect on
and from the notified date, be liable to pay to the Government such assessment, as may be lawfully imposed on the land.
Thus u/s 13, the right of the Petitioner to a ryotwari patta for the private lands in question accrued to him on 27th May 1953, the notified date. u/s
16(1), the liability to pay the land revenue, the assessment on the lands he was entitled to hold on and after 27th May 1953, on a ryotwari patta
accrued also on the same date, 27th May 1953. It could not have accrued on any earlier date.
It should be remembered that normally the land revenue on lands which a person is entitled to hold on a ryotwari patta is payable for the fasli
year. In the case of the Petitioner, it was the land revenue for the fasli year 1362 that was demanded of him. His liability to pay the land revenue
arose only on 27th May 1953, under the terms of Section 16 of Act XXVI of 1948. Whether that liability was to pay the whole of the land
revenue for fasli 1362 or only a portion thereof is the next question. The Petitioner''s contention was that the due dates for the payment in
instalments of the land revenue for fasli 1362 having expired before the notified date 27th May 1953, nothing was payable by the Petitioner as land
revenue for fasli 1362. In our opinion, neither of the extreme contentions, that nothing was payable at all and that the whole of the amount is
payable, is tenable.
No doubt, u/s 57 of the Act, the liability of the Petitioner to pay jodi on the inam estate of Nelliyadikkadu ceased at the end of fasli 1361,
though the notified date was late in fasli 1362. That, of course, cannot determine the question at issue, what is the extent of the liability of the
Petitioner to pay land revenue on lands to which he is entitled for a ryotwari patta u/s 13 of the Act. That, it should be remembered, is a fresh
liability created by Act XXVI of 1948, and the extent of that liability cannot be determined by the provision for the extinction of another liability,
the liability to pay jodi when the village was still an inam estate.
Section 31 of the Act makes it clear that the land revenue which the Petitioner would have to pay on what were his private lands would not be
taken into account in assessing the compensation payable to the Petitioner for the loss of his estate under Act XXVI of 1948. Section 31 is a
statutory right, independent of the statutory right for which Section 13 provides, and the liability u/s 16 to pay land revenue has to be correlated to
the right created by Section 13 of the Act. Section 16 of the Act imposes a liability to pay land revenue to the Government both on the land-holder
and the ryot of an estate who, under the terms of Act XXVI of 1948, is entitled to a ryotwari patta. Section 22 provides for the final ascertainment
of land revenue payable on lands held on ryotwari pattas. The ascertainment for which Section 22 provides was bound to come long after the
notified date, after the survey and settlement operations had been concluded. Section 23 provides for the determination of the liability during the
period between the notified date and the ascertainment of land revenue u/s 22 of the Act. The, rates at which the land revenue is to be payable
during that interim period have to be determined u/s 23 of the Act. Section 23(a) deals with lands held for the purpose of agriculture not being
private lands. The lands in question of the Petitioner being private lands, the rates have to be determined u/s 23(b) of the Act. It is significant that,
while the two provisos to Section 23(a) control the liability of the person whose case falls within Section 23(a), no such proviso has been added to
Section 23(b) of the Act. The proviso to Section 23(a) refers to the land revenue in respect of the fasli year in which the estate is notified.
Thus, beyond Section 16, there is no specific provision in the Act to determine the extent of the liability of a land-holder entitled to a ryotwari
patta for his private lands u/s 13 of the Act. The right to the ryotwari patta accrued in this case on 27th May 1953. The liability to pay land revenue
arose on that date u/s 16 of the Act. It is only with reference to Section 16 that the extent of the liability is to be determined. In the absence of any
specific statutory provision, the liability created by Section 16 of the Act cannot be extended backwards beyond the notified date, 27th May
1953. Though land revenue is payable for a fasli year, the liability to pay land revenue having arisen in the case of the Petitioner only on 27th May
1953, the Government would not be entitled to claim any land revenue for the period 1st July 1952 to 27th May 1953. The liability having accrued
in the course of the fasli year, on 27th May 1953, the only legal basis to enforce the liability created by Section 16 of the Act would appear to be
to apportion the liability to pay land revenue on a time basis. The kistbandi regulating the dates on which the instalments of the land revenue for fasli
1362 fell due in the ryotwari tracts in that area may not be a relevant factor in determining the extent of the liability created by Section 16 of the
Act. Since u/s 16 of the Act the liability arose on 27th May 1953, the Petitioner is liable to pay the land revenue for the period between 27th May
1953, and 30th June 1953, on which later date fasli 1362 ended. As we said, in the absence of any specific statutory provision, apportionment on
time basis would appear to be the only legal method that could be adopted to work out the rights of the Government and the liability of the
Petitioner u/s 16 of the Act.
Since the notice of demand served upon the Petitioner claimed from him a much larger sum than was lawfully due from him, that should be
another ground on which the notice of demand should be set aside.
A writ of certiorari will issue to set aside the notice of demand, dated 21st October 1953, and other proceedings under the Revenue Recovery
Act taken on the basis of that notice. This petition is allowed. No costs.