Skip to content


The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Kistna Vs. Penuraacha Venkatapatha Raju and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1912)23MLJ746
AppellantThe Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Kistna
RespondentPenuraacha Venkatapatha Raju and anr.
Excerpt:
- - the land is admittedly classed as wet land and no cess was levied from the plaintiffs under act vii of 1865. the suit is therefore one for refund of land revenue on the ground that as the government failed to supply water for raising wet crops, it was not entitled to levy the revenue assessed on the land......cess was levied from the plaintiffs under act vii of 1865. the suit is therefore one for refund of land revenue on the ground that as the government failed to supply water for raising wet crops, it was not entitled to levy the revenue assessed on the land. it is entirely a matter for government to decide what amount of revenue should be levied on any land and civil courts have no jurisdiction to try any question relating to it. (section 58 of the madras revenue recovery act ii of 1864). the lower courts are quite wrong in supposing that the liability to pay land revenue rests on contract or some relation resembling contract. land revenue is a tax imposed on lands by virtue of the prerogative of the state. the plaintiffs were bound to pay it whether water was available or not for wet.....
Judgment:

1. The decrees of the Lower Courts are altogether unsupportable. The land is admittedly classed as wet land and no cess was levied from the plaintiffs under Act VII of 1865. The suit is therefore one for refund of land revenue on the ground that as the Government failed to supply water for raising wet crops, it was not entitled to levy the revenue assessed on the land. It is entirely a matter for Government to decide what amount of revenue should be levied on any land and Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try any question relating to it. (Section 58 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act II of 1864). The Lower Courts are quite wrong in supposing that the liability to pay land revenue rests on contract or some relation resembling contract. Land revenue is a tax imposed on lands by virtue of the prerogative of the State. The plaintiffs were bound to pay it whether water was available or not for wet cultivation If they regarded the tax as excessive, their proper and only remedy was to appeal to Government for the reduction of the tax. The decrees of the Lower Courts are reversed and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //