SIVALOKAM ESTATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER A L N RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR Vs. COLLECTOR OF KANYAKUMARI AND REVENUE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner/appellant in the Second Appeal is Sivalokam Estate, hereinafter called the petitioner. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.22 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, as against the respondent/State of Tamil Nadu for (a) declaration that the claim of the respondent for payment of Rs.7725.95 as enhanced tax for the suit property as illegal and unsustainable (b) a declaration that the sum of Rs.251/- per year will be appropriate rent for the suit property for Fasli years 1397 to 1406 inclusive of both years, (c) for an injunction restraining the respondent from recovering any amount in excess of Rs.251/- per year as rent for the said period or any sum in excess of the amount fixed by the Court as fair rent; and (d) in the event of the Court holding that Rs.251/- per year is not reasonable rent, the Court may fix a fair and appropriate annual rent for the said period. In the mean time even during the pendency of the suit, as the amount due was collected by the respondent and a further prayer was made to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs.7,948.70 with future interest on Rs.7,292.70 at six per cent per annum.

(2.) The said claims were made by the petitioners contending that an extent of 31.31 acres of dry vacant land in old Survey Nos.3020/C9 and C-13 of Kaliel village belonged to the State of Travancore-Cochin. It was lying adjacent to the patta land of a European Planter by name Captain Alexander. The Travancore-Cochin Government leased out the said extent of land without time limit to the said Alexander on 14.5.1940 on an annual rent of Rs.66.05 only. The said Alexander assigned his lease hold rights to the plaintiff and the Government of Travancore-Cochin recognised the assignment by their order dated 13.1.1945. Since then the petitioner is in possession of the property as lessee and paying the annual rent at the rate of Rs.66.05. The petitioner had paid rent up to Fasli 1396. The petitioner further submits that while recognising the lease in favour of the plaintiff by letter dated 14.5.1940, the Government had sanctioned the lease without limit of time to Captain Alexander.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that in the year 1976 the Collector of Kanyakumari District claimed increased rent from the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed W.P.No.742 of 1997 before this Court. By order dated 12.10.1979, the High Court held that the Government has the right to revise the rent. The plaintiff also agreed for the revision of the rent and accordingly the Tahsildar, Vilanvancode increased the annual rent to Rs.251/-. But on 20.2.1988, the Village Administrative Officer under the orders of the defendant orally demanded that the plaintiff should pay Rs.7725.95 as rent for the property of an extent of 4.70.5 hectares and thereupon threatened to recover the amount coercively. Not even a written demand was made to the plaintiff. As a result the petitioner issued a suit notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 24.2.1988 questioning the competency of the State to increase the annual rent. In spite of having received the said notice, the Revenue officials were threatening to recover the amount illegally. The petitioner further submits that the lease in favour of Alexander originally was only of a vacant land without any trees. The rubber plants now available in the property were planted by the plaintiff. Therefore, the respondent cannot claim any rent towards the trees. The Kuthagapattom Rules, hereinafter called "the K.Rules", were not applicable to the suit property. The lease was granted by the Government under a specific order without any time limit on payment of appropriate annual rent. Therefore, the annual rent was not liable to be enhanced unilaterally by the Government. No opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff to prove the reasonable or appropriate rent. The Government cannot fix the rent arbitrarily without the consent of tenant. The respondent and his subordinates are treating the schedule land as if the lands for which B memo could be issued and tree tax recovered. The plaintiff is not a trespasser, but only a lessee under perpetual lease. The successor Government has no right to vary the terms of the order. There are about 1400 rubber trees in the schedule land. The claim of the respondent was without any basis. The amount claimed towards the rent was unreasonable. The rent is expected to remain as of now for the next ten years. However, if the Court holds that Rs.251/- was not reasonable, the Court may be pleased to fix appropriate rent for the property for the next ten years.