M S RAGUNATHA THATHACHARIAR Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF TRICHINOPOLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, an absentee ryot owning a large extent of land, sues to recover a sum of money alleged to have been unlawfully collected from him by the Revenue Department as a contribution in lieu of customary labour for the repair of an irrigation source, leviable under the Madras Compulsory Labour Act I of 1858 Section 6 of that Act says: Whenever by local custom any work for the purpose of irrigation or drainage or connected therewith is usually executed by the joint labour of a village community, any person bound by such custom to contribute labour to such work who neglects or refuses without reasonable cause to comply with a requisition for such customary aid made to him by the head of the village under the orders of the Tahsildar or other superior revenue officer shall be liable to pay a sum equal to twice the value of the labour which he is bound to contribute.

(2.) It is established that on 1 June, 1929, a requisition for customary labour was published in the village by beat of tomtom and by affixture in the village chavadi and temple and that signatures in token of knowledge of this requisition were taken from a large number of ryots including the tenants of the plaintiff who himself lives in Srirangam. The work was not done in accordance with the requisition and it was carried out depart-mentally. On 6 June, 1930, the plaintiff received an unofficial intimation that the proportionate amount due from him in respect of this work was being demanded. He took no action until on 15 June, 1931, the payment was actually demanded from him whereupon he paid under protest and followed his payment with notice of suit.

(3.) The Courts below have found that there is a lotal custom whereby compulsory labour can be exacted in respect of this tank and I do not think that it is open to the appellant in second appeal to go behind that finding which is a finding of fact. It is, however, contended that before any levy under Section 6 can be made it must be proved that there has been a requisition made to the ryot himself and that on the evidence in this case it cannot be held that any such requisition has been made to the plaintiff. There are no provisions under the Madras Compulsory Labour Act for the framing of statutory rules. But the Board of Revenue in its Standing Orders (vide B.S. Order 86, Sub-rule 5) has promulgated the following orders: In the case of an absentee ryot it is desirable that he or his local agent should be advised of a requisition for customary labour in some unmistakable way, especially where the holding is a large one. Notice of such requisitions should always be posted at the village chavadi in addition to publishing by tom-tom.