1. For the petitioner, the President of the Tiruku-rangudi Union Board, it is contended that Nallamaram, where the respondents live, is within the limits of the Union, which the respondents deny. The Union was constituted by the Government in 1896 under Section 6 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1884. One of the villages then declared by the Government to form the Union was Sengalakurichi. It is admitted that Nallamaram was not then included in Sengalakurichi or in any of the other villages of the Union. But it appears that in 1910 the revenue village of Sengalakurichi was enlarged by the Board of Revenue so as to include Nallamaram. It is not suggested that any new or revised notification regarding the inclusion of Nallamaram in the Union was ever issued. But it is contended for the petitioner, that, when the Board of Revenue for another purpose enlarged the boundaries of Sengalakurichi, the whole of the village of Sengalakurichi so enlarged was automatically brought within the limits of the Union and that from that moment the Government's notification of 1896 declaring the limits of the Union must be read in this revised sense. I cannot accept that contention. Under the Madras Local Boards Act, 1884, the limits of the Union could be altered only by the Government acting under Section 6 of that Act. Under the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, the Act now in force, the limits of a Union can be altered only by the District Board acting under Section 5 of that Act with the approval of the Government. Those provisions would be defeated if the Government or any other authority not proceeding under the Act concerned could modify the effect of a notification properly made under either Act regarding the area to be included in a Union by giving a new meaning to a village name used in such a notification so as to make it include a larger or smaller area than before. What the Board of Revenue thought fit to do in altering the limits of the revenue village of Sengalakurichi in 1910 for revenue purposes cannot have any effect on the notification issued by the Government in 1896 declaring the limits of the Tirukurangudi Union. As no notification has been issued under either the Act of 1884 or that of 1920 regarding the limits of the Union the notification of 1896 is still in force; and the villages named in it must be understood to include for the purposes of the Union the areas included within their limits as they were at the time of that notification--no more and no less. Nalla-maram, therefore, is not included within the present limits of the Union.
2. Mr. Sesha Aiyangar for the President of the Union has, also contended that in 1920 there was a re-survey by the Survey Department, in the course of which a map of the Union was prepared, showing the whole of Sengalakurichi as enlarged by the Board of Revenue in 1920 within the limits of the Union, and that under the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1897, under which that re-survey must have been made, the boundary of the Union so mapped cannot now be disputed. But the boundaries which became final under Section 13 of that Act were, so far as Government land was concerned, the boundaries of the holdings of 'registered holders' and not even the boundaries of revenue villages except so far as they were determined by.the boundaries of such holdings. That Act gave no power to fix the limits of Unions. The Survey Officer concerned had no power by his map or operations to alter the effect of the notification of 1896 declaring the limits of the Union.
3. In this case the respondents, who reside in Nallamaram, have been prosecuted for committing offences punishable under Section 207 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, by failing to attend before the President of the Union Board in accordance with summonses issued under Section 232 of the Act. Under section 232 the President 'may summon any person to attend before him and to give evidence or to produce documents, as the case may be, in respect of any question relating to taxation, or to the grant of any license or permission under the provisions of the Act.' Mr. Sesha Aiyangar contends that under that section the President of a Union Board can summon any person from any part of the Presidency to attend before him. But jinder the section a person can be summoned only 'in respect of any questions relating to taxation or to the grant of any license or permission under the provisions of the Act.' Ex. B shows that the respondents were summoned to appear before the President for examination in respect of the house-tax assessed on their houses in Nallamaram. But, as the Union Board had no power to assess or collect house-tax on houses outside the limits of the Union, in respect of the house-tax for the purpose of which the respondents were summoned to appeal', no question relating to taxation under the provisions of the Act could arise. The President had no power under Section 232 of the Act to summon the respondents to attend before him to be examined in respect of the assessment of their houses in Nallamaram for house-tax, and they committed no offence by disregarding his summonses. Their acquittal was right,'and this petition must be dismissed.
4. I may add that I do not understand how it was that all the respondents were tried together.