SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

VAITILINGAM v. SIVAGURU


Vaitilingam V. Sivaguru

1948 Present : Soertsz S.P.J.
 
VAITILINGAM,
Appellant, and SIVAGURU (Village
Cultivation Officer),
Respondent.
 
S. C. 597-M. C. Yavuniya, 20,939).

Irrigation Ordinance-Power to cut effacing-l across "paddy field-Payment of compensation-Hitless franked under Ordinance- -Ultra virus- Chapter 312, sections 7 and 11-Rule 21.
 
The Government Agent purporting to act under rule 21 of the rules framed under section J 1 of Chapter 312 of t he legislative Mincemeats orderable n channel to be cut across t he paddy Jailed of t he accused for the purpose of irrigating a tract of paddy fields. The accused blocked the colonel. He wax charged and convicted.
 
Held, that the rule did not empower the Government Agent to deprive a proprietor of his land without acquisition and compensation. Any rule purporting to do so would be ultra virus.
 
APPEAL from judgment of the Magistrate, Vavuniya. H. W. Jayawardene, for the accused, appellant. R. A. Kannangara, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney General.

Cur. adv. vult.

March 2, 1948. SOERTSZ S.P.J.-
 
This is a disturbing case, and, if the view taken by the Magistrate is correct, it means that persons entrus







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top