CHENNAPRAGADA NARAYANAMURTHY Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF KISTNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Sub-Collector, Ex. E-1, was passed on the appeal of Melam Surayya and two others. The written statement of the defendant which was carelessly drafted produces the impression that the order was passed on revision. The appeal of Surayya and others was filed on 14 November, 1916. and, though it was more than 30 days from the date of the Tahsildar's order (10 October, 1916), the appellants stated that they heard of the order on 16 October, 1916, and so claimed that their appeal was within time. Mr. Lancashire called for a report on 18 April, 1917. 1 think it must be taken that he excused the delay, or, otherwise, he would not have called for a report and might have rejected the appeals as out of time. The Subordinate judge is not clear as to whether the order of the Sub-Collector was passed on appeal or on revision. I have now sent for all the originals of Exs. C, D, E, etc., and am satisfied that the order was on appeal. The second appeal fails so far as the land is concerned.

(2.) As to the claim for the assessment Rs. 2-2-6, the Subordinate judge is obviously in error. This does not relate to a case nor to damages for proceedings taken under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is for money had and received. No land having been ultimately granted to plaintiff, there was no assessment to pay. One is surprised that the Government filed a memorandum of objections in respect of this amount and wished to retain the money, as revenue, relating to a grant which has been cancelled. Anyhow I hold that this portion of the claim is not barred, and allow the appeal.

(3.) The plaintiff next claims that he is entitled to damages. He says that, relying on the grant by the Tahsildar on 10 October, 1916, seeing that assessment was collected from him on 4 December, 1916, he began to put the land to good use. He was expected to do so and he was entitled to do so. Half the fasli being nearly over, he must be diligent in putting the land to some use if his payment of assessment was not to turn out to be a mere waste of money. I cannot agree with the view of the Subordinate Judge that merely because one knows or is bound to know that the order of the Tahsildar is subject to appeal or revision, he is not entitled to damages. Ayling, J.'s judgment in Devaramani Bhogappa V/s. Pedda Bhivaka Gour (1915) MWN 148 shows that a grantee, if he begins to make improvements after the grant is entitled to the value of the improvements. This is also clear from the judgment of Benson, J. in Muthuveera Vandayan V/s. Secretary of State for India in Council (1906) ILR 29 M 461, which prevailed and which was confirmed in L. P. A. in Muthuveera Vandayan V/s. Secretary of Stake for India in Council (1906) ILR 30 M 270, White, C. J. was for giving a higher relief and did not differ on this matter.