PANDITA VISWANADHA YEGNESWARA SASTRI Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's contention seems to be that the area of his land has been wrongly estimated by the Revenue authorities and that they therefore arrived at a wrong figure in regard to the assessment due by him/ The trial Court dismissed his suit on the ground that a Civil Court was prohibited by Section 58 of the Revenue Recovery Act from considering the question raised by the plaintiff and that decision was upheld in appeal.

(2.) There is no doubt in my mind that the lower Courts were right. In disputing the area of his land the plaintiff is disputing the amount of the assessment; for the assessment is calculated on the basis of the areas of wet and dry lands. It is realised by the learned advocate for the appellant that to some extent Section 58 acts as a bar; but the plaintiff is now willing to forego his claim to a refund of what he alleges to be an excess assessment and is prepared to confine his appeal to his right to a declaration that the area of his land is 25-35 acres and not 27-91 acres as shown in his patta. Section 58 does not merely prohibit the passing of a decree with regard to assessment; but also prohibits a Civil Court from taking into consideration or deciding any question as to the amount of assessment fixed. In considering whether the area is 25-35 acres or 27-91 acres, the Court is necessarily deciding a question with regard to the amount of assessment. After all, what the plaintiff is interested in is not so much the area of the lands shown in his patta as the amount of assessment that he has been called upon to pay.

(3.) Even if Section 58 does not operate as a bar to the granting of a declaration as to the area, it will be clearly improper for a Civil Court to exercise its discretion and give a declaration which will have the effect of circumventing the provisions of Section 58 of the Revenue Recovery Act.