Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.
H.R. Rama Rao (died) his L. Rs HR Venkamma
Versus
The Collector, Chittoor
Writ Petns. Nos. 565 and 566 of 1955
Decided On : 15-07-1957
LAND CESS - Levy - Annual rent value - Royalty - Whether included - Madras District Boards Act (XIV of 1920), Secs. 74-B, 78, 79 - Madras Revenue Recovery Act (II of 1864), Secs. 5, 6, 52 - Madras Rent and Revenue Sales Act (VII of 1839), Secs. 2, 6.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lessee of iron-ore mines, challenged the levy of land cess on the ground that he was not the occupier of the land and that the cess could not be levied on royalty. The Deputy Tahsildar had attached the lorries of a third party, Murugappa Agencies, who were the mining contractors, for non-payment of the cess.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was the occupier of the land and that the cess could be levied on royalty as it was included in the annual rent value of the land. However, the Court found that the Deputy Tahsildar had no authority to levy the cess and that the distraint made on the lorries of Murugappa Agencies was illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was the occupier of the land and liable to pay land cess? 2. Whether the cess could be levied on royalty? 3. Whether the Deputy Tahsildar had the authority to levy the cess? 4. Whether the distraint made on the lorries of Murugappa Agencies was legal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was the occupier of the land as he had the right to occupy the land and use it for mining purposes. The Court relied on the terms of the lease agreement which gave the petitioner the liberty and power to erect, construct, maintain and use on or under the said lands any engines, machinery, plant, dressing floors, funrace (coke-ovens,) brick-kilns, lime-kilns, workshops, store houses, bungalows, godowns, shed and other buildings and other works and convenience and to use and maintain any existing works and convenience of the like nature on or under the said lands. 2. The Court held that the cess could be levied on royalty as it was included in the annual rent value of the land. The Court relied on Section 79 of the Madras District Boards Act which defines the annual rent value as including the assessment, lease amount, royalty or other sum payable to Government for the lands together with any water rate may be payable for their irrigation. 3. The Court held that the Deputy Tahsildar had no authority to levy the cess as he was not specifically empowered by the Collector to do so. The Court relied on Section 5 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act which provides that the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, may proceed to recover the arrear, together with interest and costs of process, by the sale of the defaulters movable and immovable property or by execution against the person of the defaulter in manner hereinafter provided. 4. The Court held that the distraint made on the lorries of Murugappa Agencies was illegal as they were not liable to pay the cess.
Final Decision: The Court allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the order of attachment of the lorries of Murugappa Agencies.
2. The petitioner in W.P. No 566/55 stated that the letter of the, Deputy Tahsildar of Kalahasti dated 12-8-55 was served on them whereupon they sent a telegram to the 1st respondent, Collector of Chittoor, for time to contact the lessee, but the Collector directed by his memorandum B-2-26859/53 dated 20-8-1955 the payment of the amount at once, and on 27-8-1955 the Deputy Tahsildar, Kalahasti attached their lorries MSY 2271 and 2272. The petitioner thereupon sent two telegrams on 29-8-1955 to the respondents objecting to the illegal attachment of the petitioners lorries and to the illegal levy the cess; but the respondents not having taken any steps to raise the attachment, a registered letter acknowledgment due was sent to the 1st respondent with a copy to the 2nd respondent again objecting to the illegal and unauthorised levy of the land cass and also to the attachment of the lorries and demanding immediate redress in the matter.
Since no action was taken by any of the respondents to redress the grievance and since the 20th of September 1956 has been fixed for sale of lorries attached, this petition has been filed. The 1st respondent, it is stated, also sent a letter B-2-2S859/53 dated 31-8-1953 stating that the cess was leviable under Sections 78 and 79 of the District Boards Act and that the petitioner should pay up the dues and. get the lorries released and thereafter should obtain relief by addressing the Government.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners contends (1) that under Section 78 of the District Boards Act a lessee of a mine is not the occupier of the land for the purpose of levy of cess; (2) even so the cess to be levied is only on the lease amount and not on the royalty; (3) that the levy of the land cess by the Deputy Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent, is without jurisdiction as he is not the officer empowered to levy the same and consequently the order passed by him is ineffective; (4) and that no notice of the proceedings of the land cess was given to the lessee, nor (5) can the lorries of a third party, namely, the petitioner in W. P. 566/55 be attached.
4. With respect to the first point it is contended that under the terms of the lease Ex. A, the Government itself has the right to occupy the land and put it to any use it likes subject to th
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
