N SUNDARARAJA IYER Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR OF DINDIGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE constitutional validity of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, XXV of 1955 is challenged in this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Sub-Collector, Dindigul, dated 17-4-1956 who acting under Section 4 of the Act directed the restoration of the 2nd respondent, Rakkappan Servat, to the possession of certain lands belonging to the petitioner,

(2.) THE land which forms the subject-matter of the dispute in the present proceedings is of an extent of about 3 acres situated in the village of mannadimangalarn in Nilakottai taluk. The 2nd respondent claimed that he along with one Ayyaswami Pillai was jointly cultivating these lands under a lease deed executed on their behalf in favour of one Sadastvam pillai. Their case was that the joint family of the petitioner and his elder brother was the owner, of the land and that in or about May, 1953, the petitioner's elder brother Rajagopala Aiyar now deceased leased the lands to Sadasivam Pillai for a period of one year. Rajagopala aiyar died in July 1953 and since then the petitioner has been in management of this property on behalf of his family. The 2nd respondent further stated that he was evicted from the lands in 1954 and one Sengiah Servai was inducted as a tenant. The 2nd respondent filed an application under Section 4 of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (which we shall here-after refer to as the impugned Act) which enables every cultivating tenant, who was in possession of any land on the 1st December 1953 and who is not in possession thereof at the commencement of this Act (27th September 1955) to obtain restoration of possession by application to the Revenue Divisional officer. This right is however subject to certain exceptions set out in Section 4 (2)of the impugned Act. But it is common ground that none of these latter applied to the 2nd respondent or disabled him from obtaining the order.

(3.) TWO grounds have been put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner in challenge of the validity of this order of the first respondent, the Sub-Collector of dindlgul. The first was that the impugned Act and Section 4 were repugnant to the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and were therefore unenforceable and the second, that the 1st respondent, officer, had failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 4 (4) of the Act and that the order for restoration was consequently invalid.