Back
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT SIMON L.C., LORD MACMILLAN, LORD PORTER, SIR GEORGE RANKIN, AND SIR MADHAVAN NAIR.
RYOTS OF GARABANDHO AND OTHER VILLAGES - Appellant
Versus
ZEMINDAR OF PARLAKIMEDI - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : May. 10. 1943.
The Supreme Court of Madras did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to the Board of Revenue at Madras in the circumstances of this case. The Board of Revenue was not a court, and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari was limited to cases involving British subjects or their servants. The Act of 1861, which transferred the powers of the Supreme Court to the High Court, did not expand the High Court's jurisdiction in this respect. The High Court's power of superintendence over courts subject to its appellate jurisdiction did not extend to individuals or official bodies exercising judicial functions. The Board of Revenue's order enhancing the appellants' rents was not in excess of its powers under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, ryots of three villages in the Parlakimedi estate, in the district of Ganjam in the Northern Circars, brought an action in the Madras High Court for a writ of certiorari to quash an order made by the Collective Board of Revenue under s. 172 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The order enhanced the appellants' rents by 37½ per cent., considering that an enhancement of 100 per cent., which was made by the Revenue Officer, was oppressive. The appellants contended that the rents had been raised above the limit of two annas in the rupee, or 12½ per cent., which was the maximum increase permitted under s. 30, sub-s. 1 (b), of the Act. The High Court dismissed the petition for the writ, holding that if the Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction, the appellants would be entitled to a writ of certiorari addressed to the Board of Revenue to correct the illegality, but that in the circumstances the Board of Revenue had power to enhance by 37½ per cent. The appellants appealed to the Privy Council.
Finding of the Court:
The Privy Council held that the Supreme Court of Madras did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to the Board of Revenue at Madras in the circumstances of this case. The Board of Revenue was not a court, and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari was limited to cases involving British subjects or their servants. The Act of 1861, which transferred the powers of the Supreme Court to the High Court, did not expand the High Court's jurisdiction in this respect. The High Court's power of superintendence over courts subject to its appellate jurisdiction did not extend to individuals or official bodies exercising judicial functions. The Board of Revenue's order enhancing the appellants' rents was not in excess of its powers under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.
Issues: 1. Whether the Supreme Court of Madras had jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to the Board of Revenue at Madras in the circumstances of this case. 2. Whether the Board of Revenue's order enhancing the appellants' rents was in excess of its powers under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court of Madras did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to the Board of Revenue at Madras in the circumstances of this case because: (a) The Board of Revenue was not a court. (b) The Supreme Court's jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari was limited to cases involving British subjects or their servants. (c) The Act of 1861, which transferred the powers of the Supreme Court to the High Court, did not expand the High Court's jurisdiction in this respect. (d) The High Court's power of superintendence over courts subject to its appellate jurisdiction did not extend to individuals or official bodies exercising judicial functions. 2. The Board of Revenue's order enhancing the appellants' rents was not in excess of its powers under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, because: (a) The Board of Revenue was required to fix a fair and equitable rent, and was not strictly bound by the provisions of the Act. (b) The Board of Revenue considered a number of matters, including the rise in prices of staple food crops, in determining the fair and equitable rent.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
Appeal (No. 60 of 1939), by leave of the Madras High Court, from an order of that court (November 5, 1937), dismissing the appellants application that a writ of certiorari should issue to the Board of Revenue at Madras to bring up, in order to be quashed, an order made by the Collective Board (October 9» *936) under s. 172 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.
The -following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The appellants were ryots of three villages included in the Parlakimedi estate, in the district of Ganjam in the Northern Circars. The respondents were (1.) the Zemindar of Parlakimedi, and (2.) the Board of Revenue at Madras. The Governor-General in Council was represented as amicus curiae.
In October, 1925, the Zemindar applied, under ch. XI. of the Madras Estates Land Act, for the settlement of rent in respect of those villages, and by a supplemental application in March, 1926 (which was inspired by a decision just previously given by the High Court of Madras in Valluri Narasimha Rao v. Ryots of Peddamatnidipalli (( 1925) I. L. R. 49 M. 499.)), he applied for settlement of a " fair and equitable rent" under s. 168, sub-s. 1, of the Act. The Government of Madras in November, 1927, directed the special revenue officer of the district to settle a fair and equitable rent in respect of lands in the said villages. After memoranda had been submitted by the contesting parties, and after elaborate investigations on the spot, the special revenue officer, in 1935, made an order doubling the previous rents. On the ryots appeal to the Board of Revenue, a member of that Board, sitting alone, reversed that decision and allowed an increase of rent of only 12 1/2 per cent., con sidering himself bound by proviso (b) of sub-s. 1 of s. 30, which (for the cases to which it applies) runs as follows "Provided .... that no enhancement under this clause "shall raise the rent by more than two annas in the rupee of "the rent previously payable for the land." The zemindar appealed by way of revision to the Collective Board of Revenue from the decision of the single member. The Collective Board, on October 9, 1936, decided by a majority of two members to one, that proviso (b) of s. 30, sub-s. 1, did not apply to th6 case. On the other hand, they were not prepared to endorse so drastic an enhancement of rent as 100 per cent., and fixed as the appropriate increase an enhancement of six annas in the rupee, or 37^ per cent., that increase to be spread over a period of five years. On February 9, 1937, the present appellants petitioned the Madras High Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Collective Board of Revenue-, complaining that the rents had been raised above the limit of two annas in the rupee, or 12 per cent., which was the maximum increase permitted under
s. 30, sub-s. 1 (6), of the Act. On November 5, 1937, the Madras High Court (Leach C.J. and Burn J.) held that if the section of the statute applied so that no increase beyond 12^ per cent, could lawfully be made, the appellants would be entitled to a writ of certiorari addressed to the Board of Revenue to correct the illegality, but that in the circumstances the Board of Revenue had power to enhance by 37^ per cent. The petition for the writ was therefore dismissed.
The main question in this appeal was whether the High Court at Madras had jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to the Board of Revenue at Madras in the circumstances of this case.
The material provisions of the Supreme Court charter of 1800, and of the subsequent relevant legislation appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1942. Oct. 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26. Khambatta for the appellants. The Madras High Court was empowered to issue the writ of certiorari to the Board of Revenue in the circumstances of this case by
cl. 8 of the charter of 1800, which established the Supreme Court at Madras. The High Courts of Bombay and Madras by their charters have the sam
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
