A SUBRAMANIA AIYAR Vs. KSVENKATARAMA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the tenants of an inam village in the Tanjore District, for a declaration that the entry in the record of rights, published in the village on 22nd June, 1932, with reference to the rent payable by the ryots in respect of their holdings cannot be enforced. This publication was made in pursuance of a notice issued by the Sub-Collector of Kumbakonam on 10 June, 1932 (Ex. F) and that notice was given in pursuance of an order of the Board of Revenue (Ex. D), dated 6 May, 1932. It is this order of the Board of Revenue that is really challenged in the plaint. The order was passed by the Board in the course of proceedings taken under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act on an application made by the ryots for the preparation of a Record of Rights and for the settlement of rents in the village. The action is not one under Section 173 of the Act and it is not based on any of the grounds specified in Clause (3) of that section. As pointed out in Zamindar of Khallikote V/s. Beero Pollai (1935) 71 M.L.J. 118 : I.L.R. 59 Mad. 825 at 848 (F.B.), the suit is one under the general law and is based on the ground that in passing the order, Ex. D, the Revenue Board acted without jurisdiction and that in settling the rents and proclaiming the same in pursuance of that order, the Sub-Collector was not acting as the Revenue Officer exercising his powers under the Act, but merely as the mouth-piece of the Revenue Board cf. Sappani Asari V/s. Collector of Coimbatore (1902) I.L.R. 53 Cal. 561 and Mahabunnessa Bibi V/s. Secretary of State for India (1925) I.L.R. 53 Cal. 561.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge made a declaration to the effect that the order of the Sub-Collector dated 10 June, 1932, directing the publication of the Record of Rights incorporating the settlement of rent made by the Board of Revenue in its order, dated 6 May, 1932, is ultra vires and made without jurisdiction. It is against this decree that one of the landholders has preferred this appeal making the ryots and the other landholders respondents. Objection has been taken to the form of the decree as not corresponding to the prayer in the plaint; but it is much more satisfactory to deal with the real points in controversy between the parties and the objection to the form of the decree is not of much significance.

(3.) To bring out the grounds on which the validity of the Revenue Board's order has been attacked, it is necessary very briefly to narrate the history of the settlement proceedings. The Sub-Collector of Kumbakonam (who acted as the "Revenue Officer" in this case) passed an order on 28 June, 1930, in the following terms: Fifty kalams of paddy for one veli of wet land seem to be fair and equitable rent for the village.... I therefore declare that a rent of fifty kalams for one veli of wet land may be fixed.