Ramachandra Ayyar, J. — This is a case withdrawn by this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution from the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Karur, where it was registered as O.S. No. 267 of 1956 as it involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 265 of the Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the suit.

The petitioner is a ryotwari pattadar of certain wet and dry lands covered by patta Nos. 96 and 623 in Krishnarayapuram village, Kulitalai taluk, Tiruchirapalli district. He filed O.S. No. 267 of 1956 in the Court of District Munsif, Karur, against the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Tiruchirapalli, the respondent herein, praying for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 24-12-0 collected from him as land revenue for fasli 1365, as such levy and collection of the tax was illegal and unconstitutional by reason of Article 265 of the Constitution of India which provides that no tax shall be levied except by authority of law. The petitioner claimed that the respondent had no statutory right to levy and collect assessment on ryotwari lands and as such the collection of land revenue was contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution. The respondent justified the right to collect the land revenue and contended that Article 265 was not contravened. The question for determination is, therefore, whether the levy and collection of land revenue in respect of ryotwari lands is illegal and unconstitutional by reason of Article 265 of the Constitution. Article 265 of the Constitution provides

“No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law”.

Before proceeding further it is necessary to set out the main features of the ryotwari system of land tenure and the basis of assessment on the lands. It is well-known that the system of permanent settlement of Lord Cornwallis was introduced only in a few places in the old Madras Presidency and that the Board of Directors of the East India Company prohibited its extension to the rest of the presidency. Thereafter collection of revenue was by way of village settlement or by granting lease of the whole villages to a middleman that is to a rentor or headman or to a joint body of inhabitants. That system of collection of land revenue was not found satisfactory and the ryotwari system of Sir Thomas Munroe was adopted between 1812 and 1818. It was conceived as a system of land revenue administration without the middleman, the ryots being treated as proprietors of their holdings and liable to pay assessment direct to the Government. The assessment however, was not fixed either in regard to the land or in regard to the period. Arable lands were classified according to the nature of the soil and assessment was fixed according to the quality and extent of the land. Each field or holding was valued separately and the holder was free to pay the revenue and keep the field or free himself by giving it up as he pleased. (Baden Powell’s Land Systems in British India, Volume III, page 5). Settlements of revenue are made for such periods as the Government fixed for each district and they are notified in the District Gazette by the Collector. Ordinarily they are being made once in thirty years. The Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue contain the basis, rates and methods of assessment. Standing Order 1, rule 3 states that the assessment fixed represents the commuted value of the Government’s share of the surface cultivation. The State Government will fix the period of settlement and during the currency of the period no revision of assessment is possible. Baden Powell in his work Land Systems in British India, Volume III, at pages 106 to 107 says:

“Though the zamindari system was introduced by Regulation XXV of 1802 no general Revenue Act exists ; nor has the ryotwari system ever been established by legislative enactment. Really the Standing Orders of the Board are the land Revenue Code of this province and no one can thoroughly master

Click Here to Read the rest of this document