Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
SHREE RAJA KANDREGULA SRINIVASA JAGANNADHA RAO PANTHULU
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
09/10/1969
BENCH:
DUA, I.D.
BENCH:
DUA, I.D.
SHELAT, J.M.
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
CITATION:
1971 AIR 71 1970 SCR (2) 714
1969 SCC (3) 711
CITATOR INFO :
R 1971 SC1558 (20)
ACT:
Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act XXX of 1947, ss.
3(2) and 8-Classification of land based on the settlement
register without factual inquiry--Jurisdiction of Civil
Courts, if excluded.
HEADNOTE:
Sub-section (2) of s. 3 of the Madras Estates Land
(Reduction of Rent) Act XXX of 1947 authorises the State
Government to fix the rates of rent payable in respect of
each class of ryoti land in each village in the estate after
considering the recommendations of the special officer and
the remarks of the Board of Revenue thereon and by virtue of
s. 8(1) no order under this subsection is liable to be
questioned in a court of law. The appellants filed a suit
questioning the legality of the notification reducing the
rates of rent in respect of the delta dry ryoti lands in a
village. They contended that the class of land had been
determined to be delta dry land exclusively on the basis of
the settlement register which did not contain any entry with
respect to the village in question, that the settlement
register could not be considered to be conclusive, and that
proper factual inquiry was necessary, because, the
determination affected the appellant’s proprietary rights.
The trial court decreed the suit. The High Court held that
the civil courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Allowing the appeals,
HELD : The Special Officer had an obligation, under s. 2 of
the Reduction of Rent Act, to determine in respect of a
village the average rate of cash rent per acre for each
class of ryoti land in existence at the time of the
commencement of the Act, such as, wet, dry and garden.
This. had to be determined on the basis of relevant
material. The Special Officer, however, proceeded to found
his determination only on the report of the Special
Assistant which only took into account the entry in the
settlement register with respect to the soil of another
village. This really meant that the determination of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
Special Officer was solely based on the settlement register
containing no entry in regard to the village in question.
This material is irrelevant and cannot constitute a rational
basis for founding thereon the determination of the Special
Officer. His determination must, therefore, be held to be
based on no evidence, with the result that it must be held
to be in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial
procedure. A fortiori the order of the Government made
under s. 3(2) exclusively on the basis of the recommendation
of the Special Officer must in consequence be held 10 be not
in conformity with the provisions of the Reduction of Rent
Act and. therefore, Outside the purview of s. 3(2) of that
Act. Section 8(1) would accordingly be inapplicable and the
jurisdiction of civil courts cannot be excluded. [724 F-725
C]
Secretary of State v. Mask and Company, (1940) 67 I.A. 222
and O. K. Mitthuswamy Nudaliar & Ors. v. State of Madras,
C.A. Nos. 1011-1017’65, dt. 31-7-68. referred to.-
Dhujabhai and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [1968]
3 S.C.R. 662, followed.
715
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1619 and
1620
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 17, 1964 of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suits Nos. 21 of
1959 and 362 of 1958 respectively.
D. Narsaraju, B. Parthasarathy and Subba Rao, for the
appellants (in both the appeals).
A. V. Rangam, for respondents Nos. 1-3, (in the appeals).
K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudruri, for respondent
No. 6 (in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J. These two appeals (Civil Appeals Nos. 1619 and 1620
of 1968) on certificate by the High Court arise out of the
same suit and are directed against a common judgment and
decree of the High Court disposing of two cross-appeals pre-
sented in that Court and will, therefore, be disposed of,by
one judgment. The principal question canvassed lies within
a narrow compass. It relates to the jurisdiction of the
Civil Courts to entertain and decide the present suit
questioning the legality of the notification Ex. A- 13
dated November 2, 1949 reducing the rates of rent in respect
of the delta dry ryoti lands in village Kalipatnam under
the, Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act XXX of
1947, (hereafter called the Reduction of Rent Act). The
trial Court decreed the suit in part- but the High Court to
which both parties preferred appeals held that the Civil
Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is
this short question which requires determination in these
appeals.
It is unnecessary to state at length the past history of the
landed estate in question. The necessary relevant facts in
brief may only be mentioned. Shree Raja Kandrrgula
Srinivasa Jagannadha Rao Panthulu Bahadur was the Inamdar of
village Kalipatnam in Narsapuram Taluk in the West Godavari
District. On November 2, 1948, the Government issued a
notification (Ex. A-13) under s. 3(2) of the Reduction of
Rent Act reducing the rates of rent payable in respect of
delta dry ryoti lands in Kalipatnam village. The Inam
Settlement Officer, Vijayawadha, then took proceedings to
determine whether Kalipatnam was an, inam estate" as defined
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
in s. 2 (7) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. After inquiry he made the
order dated May 31, 1950 (Ex. A-1) holding that the suit
village was an inam estate. Feeling aggrieved by these two
orders the appellant instituted the suit. out of which the
present appeals arise. Me short question canvassed before
us, as observed earlier, is whether the Civil Courts have
jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
SUP. CI/70- 15
716
It may be stated at the outset that the appellant counsel.
conceded at the bar that the question as to the kind of
grant can only be decided by the Tribunal appointed under
the Reduction of Rent Act and Civil Courts have no
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such a controversy. The
suit challenging the validity of Ex. A-1 declaring
Kalipatnam village as an inam estate was accordingly
conceded to be incompetent. Challenge to Ex. A-1 was thus
not pressed in this Court. It was, however, submitted that
any finding by the, Civil Court on the kind of grant would
have to be completely ignored, by the Tribunal while
considering this question under the Reduction of Rent Act.
The submission seems to us to be justified.
We are thus left only with the relief,sought in respect of
Ex. A- 1 3. The appellant questioned the validity of
this notification on the ground that it cannot be considered
in law to have been made under s. 3 (2) of the Reduction of
Rent Act so as to be immune from challenge in the Civil
Courts. In order to appreciate and determine this argument
it is desirable to the first to the provisions of the
Reduction of Rent Act. This Act was enacted in order to
provide for the reduction of rents payable by ryots ’in
estates governed by the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
approximately to the level of the assessments levied on
lands in ryotwari areas in the neighbourhood and for the
collection of such rents exclusively by the State
Government. The purpose of collection of rent exclusively
by the State ’Government was added in 1951 with
retrospective effect. The heading of the Act, as originally
enacted, was changed, on the creation of Andhra Pradesh, to,
A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act XXX
of 1947. Suitable adaptations necessitated by the creation
of the separate Andhra Pradesh were also duly made. Section
2 of this Act which empowers the State Government to appoint
a _Special Officer for any estate. or estates for the
purpose of recommending fair and equitable rates of rent for
the ryoti land provides as under
"Appointment of Special Officer to recommend
rates of rent in estates.
2 (a)(1) The State Government may a point a
Special Officer for any estate or estates for
the purpose of recommending fair and equitable
rates of rent for the ryoti land in such
estate or estates..
(b) The Special Officer so appointed shall
recommend fair and equitable "rates of rent
for all lands in such estate or estates which
became’ ryoti lands after the commencement the
Act.
717
(2) The Special Officer shall first
determine in respect of each village
(hereinafter in this section referred to as
"Principal village") in an estate :-
(a) the average rate of cash rent per acre
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
prevailing at the commencement of this
Act for
each class of ryoti land which was in
existence in the principal village at such
commencement, such as wet, dry and garden;
Provided that where no cash rents are
prevalent in the principal village in respect
of any class of land the Special Officer shalt
determine the average rate of cash rent per
acre prevailing at such commencement for such
class of land in the nearest village in the
estate in which cash rents are prevalent for
such class of land and in which conditions are
generally similar to those obtaining in the
principal village, or where there is no such
village in the estate, in the nearest village
in the nearest estate in respect of which
village both the requirements specified above
are satisfied;
(b) the average rate of assessment per acre
prevailing at such commencement in respect of
each of the s classes of land in the nearest
ryotwari area in which conditions are
generally similar to those obtaining in the
principal village.
(3) The Special Officer shall then compare
the average rates of cash rent as determined
under clause (a) of sub-section (2) with the
average rates of assessment as determined
under clause (b) of that sub-section, and
after making due allowance for any difference
in the conditions prevailing in the two cases.
and also in cases falling under the proviso to
clause (a) of sub-section (2), for any
difference in the conditions prevailing in the
village referred to in that proviso and in the
principal village, determine (i) the extent,
if any, to which the rates of rent payable for
each class of ryoti land in the principal
village should, in his opinion, be reduced and
(ii) the rates of rent payable for each such
class of lands after such reduction.
Explanation 1. The Special Officer shall have
power only to determine that the rents payable
for any class of ryoti land in the principal
village shall be reduced; and he shall have no
power to determine that such rents shall be
enhanced.
718
Explanation 2. The) extent of reduction, if
any, determined by the Special Officer under
this sub--section shall also apply where rent
in the principal village is paid in kind or on
the estimated value of a portion of the crop or
at rates varying with the crop, whether in
cash or in kind, or partly in one of these
ways and partly in another, or partly in one
or more of these ways and partly in cash. In
every such case the Special Officer shall also
determine the rent payable, whether in kind or
in cash or partly in kind and partly in cash,
as the case may be.
(3-A) In the case of lands in an estate which
became ryoti lands after the commencement of
this Act, the Special Officer shall determine
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
for each class of such lands in the principal
village the rates of rent per acre payable
therefore under this Act. The rates of rent
so determined shall be the same as those fixed
under sub-section (2) of section 3 for similar
ryoti lands in the same, village;
Provided that where the rates of rent payable
in respect of ryoti lands in the principal
village have not been fixed under sub-section
(2) of section 3, or where there are no
similar ryoti lands in the principal village,
the rates of rent so determined shall be the
same as those fixed under sub-section (2) of
section 3 for similar ryoti lands in the
nearest village in the estate, or, if there is
no such village, in the nearest village in the
nearest estate in which conditions are
generally similar to those obtaining in
the principal village.
(4) Where the conditions in a group of two or
more village,, in an estate are generally
similar the Special Officer may perform the
functions under subsections 2, 3 and 3-A in
respect of such group of villages as a whole,
instead of separately in respect of each
village in the group."
Section 3 so far as relevant for our purpose
may now be reproduced.
"Power of State Government to reduce rates of
rent after considering Special Officer’s
recommendations.
3(1) "After completing his work in any estate,
the Special Officer shall submit his
recommendations to the State Government
through the Board of Revenue specifying in
case of ryoti lands which were in existence at
the commencement of this Act, (i) the
719
extent, if any, to which the rents for each
class of such lands in each village or group of
villages in the estate, should in his opinion,
be reduced and (ii) the rate of rent payable
for each such class after such reduction, and
in the case of lands in each village or group
of villages in the estate which became ryoti
land after the commencement of this Act, the
rate of rent determined by him in accordance
with the provisions of sub-section (3-A) of
section 2.
(2) After considering the recommendations of
the Special Officer and the remarks of the
Board of Revenue thereon, the State Government
shall, by order published in the Fort. St.
George Gazette, fix the rates of rent payable
in respect of each class of ryoti land in each
village in the estate."
"Provided that where the rate of rent so fixed
in respect of any class of ryoti lands which
were in existence at the commencement of this
Act, or in respect of any class of lands which
became ryoti lands in any fasli year after
such commencement exceeds the rate of rent
payable in respect thereof at such
commencement or in that fasli year, as the
case may be, only the latter rate of rent
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
shall be payable in respect of such land.
It is not necessary to reproduce the rest of
the sections. Section 7 empowers the State
Government to make rules to carry out the
purpose of the Act and s. 8 ousts the
jurisdiction of the Courts of Law to question
the validity of certain orders and
proceedings. Section 8 reads as under :
"Validity of certain orders and proceedings
not to be questioned.
8. The validity of the following orders and
proceedings shall not be liable to be
questioned in any Court of Law.
(i) any order made under section 3 sub-
section (2);
(ii) any recovery of rent effected by the
Provincial Government under section 3 sub-
section (4) or any payment made by them to the
landholder under the same subsection:
(ii-a) any order made under sections 3a and
3c;
720
(iii) any determination of the net income or
average net income, or average net income made
under section 5, sub-section (2)."
The precise question requiring decision by us is whether the
present sut questioning the validity of the fixation of rent
in Ex-A-13 is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil
Courts by virtue of s. 8 (1). There is no dispute that
clause (i) is the only relevant clause to be considered in
this connection. The appellant’s learned counsel submitted
that the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts
cannot be extended to orders which were not made in, strict
compliance with the provisions of s. 3 (2) because unless so
made they cannot be considered to be hit by s. 8 (1).
According to the respondent’s learned counsel, on the other
hand, Ex. A-13 was made, pursuant to the power conferred by
s. 3(2) and ’is therefore covered by s. 8(1). He further
submitted that there being a complete machinery provided ’by
the statute itself for challenging the orders made in
proceedings taken thereunder, the Civil Courts are precluded
from considering the correctness of those orders. According
to him ss. 3A and 3B provide for rectification of errors
committed by the Special Officer and that looking at the
statutory scheme it must be held that an order purporting to
be made under s. 3 (2) of the Reduction of Rent Act is
immune from challenge in the Civil Courts.
The general principle on which the jurisdiction of Civil
Courts can successfully be excluded in respect of decisions
by special Tribunals is well settled. The difficulty
usually arises in its application to, given cases. As
observed by the Privy Council in Secretary of State v. Mask
and Company(1) the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the
Civil Courts must either be explicitly expressed or clearly
implied. Further even if the jurisdiction, is so excluded
the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into the cases
where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with
or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with
the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. It is
unnecessary to refer to other cases dealing with this
question. We need only refer to the recent decision of this
Court in Dhulabhai and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
and another(2) in which after an exhaustive discussion of
the case law the legal position was summarised by the Court
speaking through Hidayatullah, C.J. as follows :
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
(1) Where the statute gives a finality to
the orders of the special tribunal the Civil
Courts’ jurisdiction must be held to be
excluded if there is adequate remedy to do
what the Civil Courts would
(1) [1940] 67 I.A. 222.
(2) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 662.
721
normally do in a suit. Such provision,
however, does not exclude those cases where
the provisions of the particular Act have not
been complied with or the statutory tribunal
has not acted in conformity with the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
(2) Where there is an express bar of the
jurisdiction of the court, an examination of
the scheme of the particular Act to find the
adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies
provided may be relevant but is not decisive
to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil
court.
Where there is no express exclusion the ex-
amination of the remedies and the scheme of
the particular Act to find out the intendment
becomes necessary and the result of the
inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case
it is necessary to see if the statute creates
a special right or a liability and provides
for the determination of the right or
liability and further lays down that all
questions about the said right and liability
shall be determined by the tribunals so
constituted, and whether remedies normally
associated with actions in Civil Courts are
prescribed by the said statute or not.
(3) Challenge to the provisions of the
particular Act-as ultra vires cannot be
brought before Tribunals constituted under
that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into
that question on a revision or reference from
the decision of the Tribunals.
(4) When a provision is already declared
unconstitutional or the unconstitutionality of
any provision is to be challenged, a suit is
open. A writ of certiorari may include a
direction for refund if the claim is clearly
within the time prescribed by the Limitation
Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to
replace a suit.
(5) Where the particular Act contains no
machinery for refund of tax collected in
excess of constitutional limits or illegally
collected a suit lies.
(6) Questions of the correctness of the
assessment apart from its constitutionality
are for the decision of the authorities and a
civil suit does not lie if the orders of the
authorities are declared to be final or there
is an express prohibition in the
722
particular Act. In either case the scheme of
the particular Act must be examined because it
is relevant enquiry.
(7) An exclusion of the Jurisdiction of the
Civil Court is not readily to be inferred
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
unless the conditions above set down apply."
According to the appellant’s counsel the first proposition
covers the present case. He submitted that there is no
statutory definition to which one can turn for the purpose
of determining wet, dry and garden lands as contemplated by
the Reduction of Rent Act. The matter has therefore
necessarily to be decided by holding an inquiry into the
factual position. This, the counsel argued, was not done.
We were taken through the relevant portions of Ex. B-24
which is a report from the Special Assistant to the Special
Officer for rent reduction. It is observed therein that
there are no wet or garden lands in village Kalipatnam and
that the entire land is delta dry in which wet paddy is
raised under Kalipatnam project channel. The ryots pay to
the Government Rs. 51- per acre by way of water rate. It
was emphasised by the appellant’s learned counsel that the
fact that wet paddy is raised in this land, which is
described as delta dry and that water rate is paid to the
Government, must conclusively show that the land is not
delta dry but wet. It is the factual position and not bare
entry in the settlement register which should be the guiding
factor. Support for this submission was also sought from
the recent unreported decision of this Court in O. K.
Muthuswamy Mudaliar & Ors. v. State of Madras(1) in which
the following observations occur :
"The mere fact that the lands are registered
dry does not affect their value. The lands
are fertile and are cultivated with wet crop.
They are irritable with the waters of the
river Bhavani. There is abundant supply of
water throughout the year. The landowners had
the right to take water for the irrigation of
400 acres."
In this connection the appellant’s learned
counsel also criticised the following
observation in the judgment of the High Court
"In the Statements Ex. B-5 and Ex. B-6.
furnished by the plaintiff himself, the
classification of the land is shown as dry
though it is also mentioned that the lands
were cultivated with double crop of paddy. If
a proprietor owns a certain land but does not
own the water source from which water is
being- taken for irrigating that land, he will
not be in a position to classify it as wet
land for the benefit of claiming rent for
himself in the same way as he would be if he
owned a water source and supplied water
therefrom as a guaranteed supply to
723
lands registered under that source as ayacut.
In the present case, water, was Government
water which was brought from Government
project."
On behalf of the appellant it was submitted
that this observation is unsound and is not
supportable ’by any provision of law. The
respondent’s counsel was unable to support
this observation of the High Court.
Reverting to Ex. B-24 Kalipatnam village was
compared with Losaragutlapadu, an adjacent
village. In regard to that village also it is
mentioned that there is an extensive wet
cultivation in delta dry land under project
channels as in Kalipatnam. Shri J.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
Sambamurthy, to whose inspection note dated
July 1, 1948 reference is made in Ex. B-24
appeared as D.W. 5 and the counsel took us
through his statement. In cross-examination
he deposed as follows :
"I cannot say whether there are 4,000 acres of
land which are double crop land. There are
some lands in which double crops are grown. I
cannot say their extent. There are small
extents of garden lands. There are single
crop lands under extension channel. AR these
lands are treated as dry lands rents reduced.
The Kalipatnam is at the tail end of the
delta. The Losaragutlapadu is in Bhimavaram
taluk. Yanamadula Drain intervenes Kalipatnam
and Losaragutlapadu. Gollavanithippa lands
have come under cultivation previously. It is
part of Losaragutlapadu. I cannot say whether
there are 11,000 acres of land uncultivated in
Losaragutlapadu. Probably it is forest area.
There were small extents of land in
Muthyalapalli and Vempa under the Project
Channel. Ex. B-4 shows that there are lands
of double crop. Under the Act the plaintiff
has to furnish a statement of lands etc. The
plaintiff’s agent furnished Exhibit B-6.
The soil of Losaragutlapadu was examined.
This is contained in Exhibit B-24. The
Settlement Officer classified the soils under
contained Diglot Registers. An extract of it
is contained in Exhibit B.24. I cannot say
readily now without reference to Settlement
Manual what the figures given in the Diglot
Register are relating to the soils. That
statement contained in the file relates to the
Losaragutlapadu. A similar statement for
Kalipatnam was not taken. There is no such
statement for that village. I did not write
to the Settlement Department to prepare such a
statement for suit village. I do not know
whether the Government
724
analise the soil through Agricultural
Department before the project was
started.......... I examined the soils at one
or two, places and I consulted the Settlement
Register at that time. I cannot say whether
those one or two places were under extension
project. I remember I have taken description
of the soil from the Settlement Register and
Manual...... I do not know about the
construction of the project."
Shri J. Satyanarayana, Tahsildar, who appeared as D.W. 7
stated in his cross-examination that the lands in Kalipatnam
were sanctioned with two crops, though he could not say
whether they were under cultivation since 1948. He was also
unable to say whether the settlement register from
Kalipatnam was available in Taluk Office. According to him
water rate in the year 1958 was increased 50 % for all lands
including Kalipatnam. The cess was also increased
proportionately. He was unable to explain the figures,
given under the description of the soil in Ex. B-24 and
indeed he expressed his ignorance about the existence of any
register for Kalipatnam on this subject.
The appellant’s argument strongly pressed before us was that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
the class of land had been determined to be delta dry land
exclusively on the basis of the settlement register which
did not contain any entry with respect to Kalipatnam. The
entry in the settlement register with respect to the soil of
Losaragutlapadu could not be taken to cover the soil in
Kalipatnam in the absence of evidence that the soil in these
two villages was similar in this respect.Stress was also led
on the submission that description in the settlement
register could not be considered to be conclusive and that
proper factual inquiry was necessary because the termination
affects the appellant’s proprietary rights.The submission
appears to us to possess merit.The Special Officer had an
obligation under s.2 of the Reduction of Rent Act to
determine in respect of Kalipatnam village the average rate
of cash rent per acre for each class of ryoti land in
existence at the time of the commencement of the Act, such
as, wet, dry and garden. This had to be determined on the
basis of relevant material. The Special Officer, however,
proceeded to found his determination only on the report of
the Special Assistant (Ex. B-24) which, as discussed above,
only took into account the entry in the settlement register
with respect to the soil of Losaragutlapadu. This really
means that the determination of the Special Officer is
solely based on the settlement register containing no entry
in regard to Kalipatnam. This material is irrelevant and
cannot constitute a rational basis for founding thereon the
determination of the Special Officer. His determination
must, therefore, be held
725
to be based on no evidence, with the result that it must be
held to be in violation of the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure. A fortiori the order of the Government
made under s. 3 (2) exclusively on the basis of the
recommendation of the Special Officer must in consequence be
held to be not in conformity with the provisions of the
Reduction of Rent Act and, therefore, outside the purview of
s. 3 (2) of that Act. Section 8 (1) would accordingly be
inapplicable and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts cannot be
excluded. The notification Ex. A-13 must, therefore, be
struck down as contrary to law and ultra vires the Reduction
of Rent Act.
We accordingly allow the appeals with costs and strike down
the report of the Special Officer as also the notification
Ex. A-13. As observed earlier challenge to Exhibit A-1 was
not pressed at the hearing by the appellant. It would be
open to the authorities concerned to proceed to reduce the
rent in accordance with law. One set of costs.
Y.P. Appeals allowed.
726