RAGHUTHILAKATHIRTHA SREEPADANGALAVANI SWAMIJI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant, Raghutilaka Tirtha Sripadanagavaru Swamiji, in the Mysore High Court challenging the validity of S. 6 (2) of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 (XIII of 1952) hereafter called the Act and the notification issued under the said section on 31-3-1952.

(2.) The appellant's case as set out in his writ petition before the High Court was that the impugned section as well as the notification issued under it infringed his fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f), 26, 31 and 31-A of the Constitution. This contention has been rejected by the High Court and it has been held that the section and the notification under challenge are valid and constitutional. The appellant then applied for a certificate from the High Court, both under Art. 132 and Art. 133 of the Constitution. The High Court granted him a certificate under Art. 133, but refused to certify the case under Art. 132. Thereafter the appellant applied to this Court for liberty to raise a question about the interpretation of the Constitution and permission has been accorded to the appellant accordingly. That is how the present appeal has come to this Court.

(3.) The appellant owns 6 acres and 30 ghuntas of garden land in village Muldagilu in Taluka Thirthahalli in the district of Shimoga. Respondent No. 3 Ramappa Gowda, is his tenant in respect of this land. A registered lease deed was executed in favour of respondent No. 3 by the appellant on 11-3-1943; under this document respondent No. 3 undertook to pay 821/2 maunds of area in addition to Rs. 17/12 in cash as rent per year. In 1955 respondent No. 3 filed an application before respondent No. 2, the Tehsildar of Thirthahalli, under S. 12 of the Act and claimed that the standard rent payable by him to the appellant should be fixed (Tenancy case of 85 of 1955-56). Meanwhile respondent No. 1, the Government of Mysore, had, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S. 6 of the Act, issued a notification No. R9-10720/L. S. 73-54-2 on March 28/29, 1955. This notification purported to fix the standard rent for lands of the category to which the appellant's land belongs at one-third of the produce. Feeling aggrieved by this notification the appellant filed the present writ petition in the High Court on 16-12-1955. His case was that S. 6 (2) as well as the notification issued under it were ultra vires, invalid and inoperative.