SHREE RAJA KANDREGULA SRINIVASA JAGANNADHA RAO PANTHULU BAHADUR GARU versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 09-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

714 
SHREE RAJA KANDREGULA SIUNIV ASA JAGAN· 
A 
NADHA RAO PANTllULU BAHADUR GARU 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
October 9, 1969 
[J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act XXX a/ 1947, ss. 
3(2) and 8-Classification of land based on the settkment register without 
factual inquiry-Jurisdiction of Civil Couris, if excluded. 
Sub-section (2) of s. 3 of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) 
B 
Act XXX of 1947 authorises the State Government to fix the rates of rent c 
payable in respect of •ach class of ryoti land in each villa&e in the estate 
after considenng the recommendations of the special officer 
and the 
remarks of the Board of Revenue thereon and by virtue of s. 8(1) 
no order under this sub-section is liable to be questioned in a court of 
law. 
The appellants filed a suit questioning the legality of the notifica-
tion reducing the rates of rent in respect of the delta dry ryo~ lands in 
a village. They contended that the class of land had been determined to 
be delta dry land exclusively on the 
basis 
of the settlement register 
D 
which did not contain any entry with respect to the village in question. 
that the settlement register could not be considered to be conclusive, and 
that proper factual inquiry was necessary, because, 
tht: 
determination 
affected the appellant's proprietary rights. 
The trial court decreed the 
suit. 
The High Court held that the civil courts had no jurisdiction to 
entertain the suit Allowing the appeals, 
HELD : The Special Officer had an obligation, under s. 2 of the 
Reduction of Rent Act, to determine in respect of a village the average 
rate of cash rent per acre fot each class of ryoti land in existence at the 
time of the commencement of the Act, such as, wet, dry and garden. 
Thi& bad to be determined on the tasis of relevant material. The Special 
Officer, however, proceeded to found his determination only on the report 
of the Special Assistant which only took into account the entry in the 
settlement register with respect. to the 
soil of another village. 
Thio; 
really meant that the determination of the Special Officer was solely 
based on the settlement register containing no entry in regard to the 
vill~e in question. 
This material is irrelevant 
and cannot constitute 
a rational basis fdr founding thereon the determin'1tion of the Special 
Officer. 
His determination must. therefore. be held to be based on no 
evid•nce, with._lhe result that it must be held to be in viol'1tion of the 
fundamental principles of judicial procedure. 
A fortiori 
the order of 
the· Government made under s. 3(2) exclusively on the basis of the 
recommendation of the Specia1 Officer must in 
consequence be held to 
be not in conformity with the provisions of the Reduction of Rent Act 
and. therefore. outside the pu'rview of s. 3(2) of that Act. Section 8( l) 
would ac.cordingly be inaoplicable and the jurisdiction of civil courts 
cannot be excluded. [724 F-725 CJ 
Secretar;v of State v. Mask and Company. 
(1940) 67 I.A. 
222 and 
0. K. Muthuswamv Mudaliar & Ors. v. State of Madras. C.A. Nos. 
1011-1017.'65, dt. 31-7-68, referred to. 
... 
DhuJahhai and Ors. v. State of Madhya Prade.<h & 
Ors. 
[19681 
S.C.R. 662, followed. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
' 
.! 
PANTHULU. v. A. P .. STATI! (Dua, J.) 
715 
A 
CIVIL APPllL~ATJ> lUIUSDICTIOJ'! :. Civil Appeals NP&. 1619 
B 
c 
and 1620 of 1968. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 17, 1964 
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suits Nos. "21 of 
1959 and 362 of 1958 respectively. 
D. Narsaraju, B. Parthasarathy and .Subbiz Rao •. 'fbi th~ appel-
lants (in both the appeaJs) ~ · · · · 
· 
· 
.. . · 
. 
.4. V. Ra,,gam, fortespondentsNiis; 1•3.: (in b<iththe.appeals). 
K; R. Chaudhuri and K~· Ril;tindrti Chtiudruri, ·for re8pc)iident 
No, 6 (iii. bOlli the appe~)• . 
.. · 
· . · 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered b)'. 
Dwi, J. These two appeaJs (Civil Appehls Nos. 1619 and 
1620 of 1968). on certificate by· the High Court arise out of the 
same suit and are directed against a common judgment and . 
. decree of the High Court disposing of . two cross-appeaJs pre-
sented in that Court and will, therefore, be disposed of by one 
D 
judgment. The principal question canvassed lies within a narrow 
compass. 
It relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to 
entertain and decide· the present suit questioning ·. the . legality 
of the notification Ex. A-13 dated November 2, 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.