RYOTS OF GARABANDA; SARIAPALLI AND RAMACHANDRAPURAM VILLAGE, GARABANDA GROUP, PARLAKIMEDI ESTATE, REPRESENTED BY PEDDINI RAMALINGAM SABHUDHI Vs. ZAMINDAR OF PARLAKIMEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1925 the Zamindar of Parlakimedi applied to the Government under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act for a settlement of rents in respect of all the ryoti villages in his estate, and Government acceded to his request. A special Revenue Officer was thereupon appointed to conduct the inquiry and after a lengthy investigation he announced his findings. The ryots contended that the rates fixed in the year 1868 were permanent and were not liable to be altered. They further contended that in the event of this question being decided against them Section 30 of the Act limited any enhancement of rents to 12? per cent. The special Revenue Officer decided both these questions against the ryots and directed that the rents should be enhanced cent, per cent. An appeal followed to a single member of the Board of Revenue under Section 171 of the Act. By an order dated 30 March, 1936, the member of the Board who heard the appeal upheld the contention of the ryots that the prevailing rates of money rent could not under the law be enhanced by over 12? per cent, in settlement proceedings. The Zamindar then applied under Section 172 to the Board for revision of this order. On the 9 October, 1936, the Board by a majority, decided that the 12? per cent. limit was not applicable to proceedings under Chapter XI, but they disagreed with the special Revenue Officer's finding that the rents should be enhanced cent, per cent. They decided that the enhancement should not exceed 37? per cent. The ryots then applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari with a view to an order being passed quashing the Board's order of the 9th October, 1936. This application is now before us.

(2.) One of the grounds for asking for the issue of a writ of certiorari was that the Board of Revenue had no power to revise the order of the single member passed on the 30 March, 1936, but when it was pointed out that the ryots had appeared before the full Board, and had submitted to its jurisdiction this contention was dropped. The learned Advocate for the ryots, however, contended that if the Board had no power to increase the rents beyond 12? per cent, it acted illegally, and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to increase then by 37? per cent. The learned Government Pleader very properly conceded that if the Act did not allow an increase beyond 12? per cent., the ryots would be entitled to the issue of the writ. He, however, denied the contention that the Act did limit enhancement to 12? per cent, and this is the question which we are called upon to decide. In order to do so it is necessary to examine certain of the provisions contained in Chapters III and XI of the Act.

(3.) Chapter III, as amended by the Madras Act (VIII of 1934), consists of Secs.24 to 44 which are headed: General provisions relating to the rates of rent payable by ryots.