KATRADAGGA LAKHMINADHARAO NAIDU Vs. SPECIAL OFFICER RENT REDUCTION BOARD OF REVENUE ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be answered by the Full Bench is whether the State Government has power to revise the rents fixed under a notification issued under Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, XXX of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the detriment of the landholder.

(2.) For an appraisal of the points calling for determination, it is necessary to state a few material facts. Junjeru village is an inam estate in the Bandar taluk of Krishna District. The provisions of the Act were made applicable to this village by a notification issued in G. O. Ms. No. 505, Revenue, dated 14/03/1949. This inam estate was taken over under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 on the 1/10/1951. The said notification was issued and duly published after following the procedure indicated in Sections 2 and 3 of the Act which will be read presently. Ever since, the notification was being implemented and the rents so settled were being collected up to 1954. While so, representations were made by some of the ryots in the village that the rents fixed by the Government under the Act required further reduction for reasons which it is unnecessary to mention here. Thereupon the State Government directed the Special Officer to go into the matter afresh. On further enquiry by the concerned officers, which resulted in the Board of Revenue recommending revision of rates, the Government decided to reduce the rents as requested by the ryots. Accordingly, notices were issued to the land-holder to show cause why a revision of rates as recommended by the Board of Revenue should not be effected. It is at that juncture that the petitioner approached this Court with a request to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, directing the Government of Andhra Pradesh not to proceed with the enquiry in pursuance of the notice dated the 29/02/1956.

(3.) Sri N. K. Acharya, appearing in support of the petition, contended that after the rents payable in respect of each class of riot land in the village were fixed, there was no power left in the Government to further reduce the rents, as the Act did not contemplate a second enquiry for revising the rates of rents already determined. When once the power conferred on the Government by Section 3 was exercised, it was exhausted and thereafter it was not competent for the Government to re-open the matter. On the other hand, the stand taken by the Government is that such power exists, that without it the very object of the Act could be defeated and that it was open to the Government to reassess the rents if it appeared that the earlier determination was vitiated by a mistake or incorrect information obtained by the Special Officer. Indisputably, neither Section 2 nor Section 3 confers any power on the Government to modify or cancel any notification or to revise the rent once fixed. But we are invited to have recourse to Sections 13 and 15 of the Madras General Clauses Act. The question for consideration is which of the two contentions should prevail.