K. THIAGARAJA PILLAI Vs. THE TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to have taken 8.87 acres in R.S. No. 70 in Kanganchari Vattam, Nannilam Taluk belonging to the Railways through the respondent and to have raised paddy crops therein ever since 1945. He also claims to have cultivated the lands by contributing his own physical labour. In fasli 1382 the respondent, on behalf of the Railways held a public auction of the leasehold right in the lands. The petitioner along with others bid at the auction. Since the petitioner was not the successful bidder, he was directed to deliver possession to the successful bidder for that fasli. At that stage the petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent from interfering with his possession of the said lands in pursuance of his notice dated 1st February, 1973 directing him to deliver possession to the successful bidder.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the lands ever since 1945 and that therefore he is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955) and as such he cannot be dispossessed of the lands except in accordance with the provisions of that Act. In support of his case the petitioner relies on the decision of Natesan, J., in Nattanna Gounder v. Munuswamy Gounder : (1970) 1 MLJ 213 . In that case it was held that a lessee of agricultural land from the Government could claim protection under the provisions of that Act and that it is not open to the State to contend that by virtue of Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, the provisions restrictions, conditions and limitations of the lease deed ought to prevail over the statutory rights conferred on, tenants under Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955. According to the learned Judge Section 3 of the Government Grants Act has to be taken to have a limited scope of saving the Government Grant only in, respect of provisions, restrictions conditions and limitations contained in the Transfer of Property Act in view of the decision of the Judicial Committee in Jagannath Baksh v. United Provinces and of the Supreme Court in Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji : [1955] 1 SCR 1311 . The learned Judge was also of the view that the estate cannot claim exemption from the provisions of the said Act on the ground of the archaic prerogative and immunity of the "Crown" from operation of statutes as the State is no longer sovereign entitled to any prerogative and that therefore a statute like Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955 applies to the State as much as it does to a citizen unless it expressly or by necessary implication exempts the State from its operation.