Skip to content


(Pulavarthi) Lakshmanaswami Vs. Abdul Khudavande Sahib Garu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Mad703
Appellant(Pulavarthi) Lakshmanaswami
RespondentAbdul Khudavande Sahib Garu and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the government orders, mentioned above are at best only advisory and amount to a caution to the local boards that it is proper to exhaust the other available means of realising dues before having recourse to section 221 before a magistrate......this petition arises from an application to the stationary sub-magistrate of bhimavaram by the union board of akiveedu under section 221, local boards act, to realize from the respondents the amount of a penalty which the union board alleged the respondents had incurred by reason of unauthorised occupation or encroachment upon the property of the union board. the sub-magistrate, instead of proceeding under the section to hear the application and the objections if any and to determine them, made an order on 27th march 1929 that in pursuance of two government orders respectively 4657 l & m dated 23rd november 1928 and 770 l & m dated 13th february 1929, the union board could not proceed before the magistrate, before it had exhausted all other processes for the recovery of the dues. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Pandalai, J.

1. This petition arises from an application to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Bhimavaram by the Union Board of Akiveedu under Section 221, Local Boards Act, to realize from the respondents the amount of a penalty which the Union Board alleged the respondents had incurred by reason of unauthorised occupation or encroachment upon the property of the Union Board. The Sub-Magistrate, instead of proceeding under the section to hear the application and the objections if any and to determine them, made an order on 27th March 1929 that in pursuance of two Government Orders respectively 4657 L & M dated 23rd November 1928 and 770 L & M dated 13th February 1929, the Union Board could not proceed before the Magistrate, before it had exhausted all other processes for the recovery of the dues. The Board has petitioned this Court to revise the said order.

2. I think the order of the Sub-Magistrate was wrong. The Government Orders, mentioned above are at best only advisory and amount to a caution to the Local Boards that it is proper to exhaust the other available means of realising dues before having recourse to Section 221 before a Magistrate. Government Orders as such have no force of law and were merely administrative directions. Once the matter was placed before the Magistrate, it was his duty to enquire into it according to law, i.e., Section 221. He has practically declined to do so and therefore the order is set aside and the papers will be remitted to him for disposal according to law.


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