LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU versus G.N. VENKATASWAMY & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
'
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
v.
G.N. VENKATASWAMY & ORS. ETC. ETC.
JULY 11, 1994
[KULDIP SINGH AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.J
Tamilnadu Revenue Recovery Act. 186~Section 52-A (as inserted by
Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery (Amendment) Act 1972).
Constitution of India 1951}-Schedule VIII list II Entry ]{}-Section
52-A is constitutionally valid inasn1uch as State Legislature can confer addi-
tional jurisdiction on existing revenue coutts to recover any public dues as
arrears of land revenue.
Collector constitutes revenue court \\-ithin the meaning of Entry 1 lA
D of Schedule VII List III. The Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 was
amended and a new section namely 52-A was inserted in it in 1972. The
validity of Section 52-A was challenged before the High Court on two
grounds.
1. State Legislature had no legislative competence to enact Section
E 52-A.
2. It was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Act provides for distress sale of distraint property, attachment
of land, sale of land and the arrest of defaulter for non-payment of the
F
arrears of land revenue. Collector is the authority competent to take such
actions. Detailed procedure in that behalf has been provided under the
Act. The act provides a salutary procedure which is drastic and has l)een
enacted for speedy recovery of the land revenue. Entry III (Administration
of Justice) etc. and Entry 43 (Public Debt of the State), Entry 45 (land
G revenue) etc. of List II and Entry 43 recovery of State claims of List III
were relied upon by the State Counsel, and decision of Collector, High
Court in Mukherjee and Co. v. Union of India, AIR (1964) Calcutta 165,
were relied upon by the State Government.
But a Division Bench of the High Court declared S. 52-A of the Act
H ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature. It did not deal with the
322
STATE OFT.N. '" VENKATASWAMYJ
323
ground under Article 14.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, this Court after considering the
relevant decisions and allowing the appeal, this Court
HELi>: I.I. Under Entry 11-A of List III of the 7th Schedule of the
Constitution, the State Legislature has the powers to make laws thereby
enlarging or reducing the powers of the courts. The State Legislature can
create new courts, reorganise the existing courts, provide jurisdiction to
A
B
the said courts and also take away the existing jurisdiction if it so desires.
There is no reason why a State Legislature cannot confer additional
jurisdiction on existing revenue courts to recover any public dues as C
arrears or land revenue. (330-G-H, 331-A]
State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jetlwbai, (1951] SCR 51 =AIR
(1951) SC 69, followed.
C. Mukherjee and Co. v. Union of India, AIR (1964) Cal 1165 = (1962)
D
Cal W 210 = (1964) 51 ITR 366, referred to.
1.2. The collector exercises powers under the Revenue Recovery Act
which is an Act of the State Legislature. He is invested with the power to
decide the controversy between the State and the defaulter. There is in
existence a tis between the State and the defaulter. There is assertion and
denial. The dispute involves the rights and obligations or the parties which
are decided by the Collector. The Collector has the power to sell movable
and immovable property or the defaulter. He can even arrest and detain
the person up to a period of two years. All these powers of the Collector
E
are the judicial powers of the State. The only conclusion which can be
F
drawn is that the Collector under the Act is a revenue court. [332-F-G]
1.3. Once it is held that the Collector is a revenue court then there
is no difficulty in holding that Section 52-A of the Act was enacted by the
Tamil Nadu Legislature under Entry 11-A List III Schedule 7 Constitution G
of India. (332-H)
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Shamia, (1965) 2 SCR
366 =AIR (1965) SC 1595 = (1965) 1 LW 433 and Dev Singh v. Registrar,
Punjab and Haryana High Court, [1987) 3 SCC 169 = (1987) SCC (L&S)
190= (1987) 3 ATAC 794= (1987) 2 SCR 1005, relied on.
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
1.4. Section 52-A of the Act is passed \lith the object of providing a
B
c
D
E
speedier remedy to the State-0"11ed corporations to realize the loan ad-
vanced by them. While advancing loans the Corporations do not act as
ordinary bankers with a view to earn interest. [333-C]
U.P. Financial Cmpn. v. Gem Cap !India) Pvt., ltd., [1993) 2 SCC
299 = JT (1993) 2 SC 226 and S.P.Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.