RYOTS OF GARABANDHO Vs. ZEMINDAR OF PARLAKIMEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought, by leave of the Madras High Court, from an order of that Court dated 5th November 1937, dismissing the appellants' application that a writ of certiorari should issue to the Board of Revenue at Madras to bring up, in order to be quashed, an order made by the Collective Board, on 9th October 1936, under S. 172, Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The ancient writ of certiorari in England is an original writ which may issue out of a superior Court requiring that the record of the proceedings in some cause or matter pending before an inferior Court should be transmitted into the superior Court to be there dealt with. The writ is so named because, in its original Latin form, it required that the King should "be certified" of the proceedings to be investigated, and the object is to secure by the exercise of the authority of a superior Court, that the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal should be properly exercised. This writ does not issue to correct purely executive acts, but, on the other hand, its application is not narrowly limited to inferior 'Courts' in the strictest sense. Broadly speaking, it may be said that if the act done by the inferior body is a judicial act, as distinguished from being a ministerial act, certiorari will lie. The remedy, in point of principle, is derived from the superintending authority which the Sovereign's Superior Courts, and in particular the Court of King's Bench, possess and exercise over inferior jurisdictions. This principle has been transplanted to other parts of the King's dominions, and operates, within certain limits, in British India.

(2.) The appellants are ryots of three villages included in the Parlakimedi estate in the district of Ganjam in the Northern Circars. The respondents are (1) the Zemindar of Parlakimedi and (2) the Board of Revenue at Madras. In October 1925, the zemindar applied, under chap. 11, Madras Estates Land Act, for the settlement of rent in respect of these villages, and, by a supplemental application in March 1926, (which was inspired by a decision just previously given by the High Court of Madras in 49 Mad. 4991) he applied for settlement of a "fair and equitable rent" under S. 168 (1) of the Act. The Government of Madras in November 1927, directed the Special Revenue Officer of the district to settle a fair and equitable rent in respect of lands in the said villages. After memoranda had been submitted by the contesting parties and after elaborate investigations on the spot, the Special Revenue Officer in 1935 made an order doubling the previous rents. On the ryots' appeal to the Board of Revenue, a member of that board sitting alone reversed this decision and allowed an increase of rent of only 12? per cent., considering himself bound by proviso (b) of cl. (1) of S. 30, which (for the cases to which it applies) runs as follows : Provided.....that no enhancement under this clause shall raise rent by more than two annas in the rupee of the rent previously payable for the land.

(3.) The zemindar appealed by way of revision to the Collective Board of Revenue from the decision of the single member. The Collective Board on 9 October 1936, decided by a majority of two members to one, that proviso (b) of S. 30 (l) did not apply to the case. On the other band, they were not prepared to endorse so drastic an enhancement of rent as 100 per cent., and fixed as the appropriate increase an enhancement of six annas in the rupee, or 37? per cent., this increase to be spread over a period of five years. On 9 February 1937, the present appellants petitioned the Madras High Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Collective Board of Revenue, complaining that the rents had been raised above the limit of two annas in the rupee or 12? per cent., which is the maximum increase permitted under S. 30 (1) (b) of the Act. On 5th November 1937, the Madras High Court (Leach CJ and Burn J.) held that if the section of the statute applied so that no increase beyond 12? per cent. could lawfully be made, the appellants would be entitled to a writ of certiorari addressed to the Board of Revenue to correct the illegality, but that in the circumstances the Board of Revenue had power to enhance by 37? per cent. The petition for the writ was therefore dismissed.