TALUK BOARD Vs. ZAMINDAR OF CHELLAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the Taluk Board of Bandar appeals against the decree of the Lower Courts by which it has been restrained from filling up three tanks belonging to the respondent, the Zamindar of Chellapalli. The Board purported to act under Section 100 of the Madras Act V of 1884 by which: The Taluk Board may, by notice, require the owner of any tank or well to cleanse, fence, repair or fill it up if, on inspection, it appears likely to be dangerous, or prove injurious to the health of the neighbourhood.

(2.) It appears that there were reports of the District Medical and Sanitary Officer before the Board to the effect that the tanks in question were injurious to the health of the villagers and the President of the Board also inspected the tanks and it may be taken that the Board came to the conclusion that the existence of the tanks in their present condition was injurious to the health of the neighbourhood.

(3.) I am prepared to proceed, for the purposes of this judgment, on the assumption that there was sufficient material before the Board on which to found the conclusion as to the present unhealthy and injurious nature of these tanks. The rulings to which we have been referred show that if there were materials before a local authority to come to such a conclusion it is not for the Civil Courts to inquire into the sufficiency or otherwise of those materials. It is for the Board to decide upon the evidence whether a certain tank is dangerous or injurious to the health of the neighbourhood, and when such decision is arrived at it is not for the Court to interfere with it on the ground that the Court would have come to a different conclusion. That, I take it, is the effect of the rulings v. The Municipal Commissioners for the City, of Madras v. Parthasaradi (1888) I.L.R., 11 Mad., 341, Duke v. Rameswar Malia (1899) I.L.R., 26 Calc., 811, and Patel Panachand v. Ahmedabad Municipality (1898) I.L.R., 32 Bom., 230, and to that extent I have nothing to say as regards the applicability of these decisions to this case. But what the respondent, the zamindar, contends is that the Board has exercised its discretionary power in this case arbitrarily and unreasonably, having regard to the admitted facts and circumstances of the case. The power conferred on the Local Board by Section 100 is a very wide power. The Board acting under that section may require the owner of a tank to repair it or fill it up at his own expense, for there is no provision in the Act for the owner being recouped the expenses incurred by him in complying with the provisions of the Act. The Board has the power to acquire the land, if it chooses, by proceedings properly taken, in that connexion, But in that case it would have to make compensation to the owner of the land. There is however no provision for the Board making any compensation to the owner of the property who is called upon to do certain acts under Section 100. It is suggested on behalf of the Local Board that the owner of the tank may give up the tank to the Board if he so chooses and. thus save himself the expense of filling it up; that is to say the owner may be compelled under Section 100 indirectly to transfer his property to the Board without any compensation whatever. That is the only way by which the owner of a tank can save himself, according to the argument, from what may in some circumstances amount to considerable loss. I should say that in such circumstances the Courts will see that the Taluk Board does not exercise the power conferred on it by Section 100 for ulterior purposes. If the Board uses its powers for any such purpose, the Civil Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to restrain the Board from abusing its powers in that manner.