Skip to content


C. Hanumanlu Pantulu Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Kistna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1913)ILR36Mad373
AppellantC. Hanumanlu Pantulu
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Kistna
Excerpt:
right of suit - acquisition of inam land by government for municipal purposes--madras district municipalities act (iv of 1884), section 279, effect of--sale by municipality--imposition by government of ground-rent on occupier--ground-rent, liability to pay--g. order 210 of 20th february 1889, effect of--exemption from ground-rent, to be express. - 1. the plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the government is not entitled to levy ground-rent for certain land in his occupation and for the recovery of the amount collected from him by the government as ground-rent.2. the district judge has decided, and, in our opinion, quite rightly, that the plaintiff has not made out any cause of action. two points are argued in second appeal. the first is that the municipality acquired by the land acquisition proceedings the inam right which belonged to the original owners of the land and that by successive sales the plaintiff now owns that; right. the government, it is contended, is entitled only to quit-rent as from the inamdar and not ground-rent. assuming that a civil court could go into this question, there is really no basis for the.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the Government is not entitled to levy ground-rent for certain land in his occupation and for the recovery of the amount collected from him by the Government as ground-rent.

2. The District Judge has decided, and, in our opinion, quite rightly, that the plaintiff has not made out any cause of action. Two points are argued in Second Appeal. The first is that the Municipality acquired by the Land Acquisition proceedings the inam right which belonged to the original owners of the land and that by successive sales the plaintiff now owns that; right. The Government, it is contended, is entitled only to quit-rent as from the inamdar and not ground-rent. Assuming that a Civil Court could go into this question, there is really no basis for the contention. The land was acquired by the Government for the requirements of the Bezwada Municipality under the Land Acquisition Act. It is quite clear that when the land was acquired, the title to it vested in Government. See Section 16 of the Act. Section 279 of Madras Act IV of 1884 does not help the plaintiff at all. It provides that on payment by the Municipality of the amount of compensation awarded for the land, the land shall vest in the Municipality. It is quite dear from that section itself that it is the Government that is to acquire the land. The effect of the section is merely to declare that the title which vesta in the Government by the acquisition passes to the Municipality when the Municipality pays the amount settled as compensation. The title of the Municipality, therefore, was derived from Government. When the land became vested in Government it became ordinary Government land liable to assessment in the hands of any person who might; afterwards become the occupier. If the plaintiff claims to hold the land free from the payment of such assessment as the Government may fix he must show some grant exempting him from the payment of the ordinary assessment. The appellant's counsel argues that it must be taken that there was such a grant in this case, because, when G.O. No. 210, dated the 20th February 1889, was issued permitting Municipal Councils to transfer lands vested in them by sale, mortgage or otherwise, no condition was inserted that the assignee would be liable to pay such assessment or ground-rent as might be fixed by the Revenue authorities and that this condition was inserted only in an order passed in the year 1900. The argument; is that, under the previous order of 1889, every transferee from the Municipality would acquire an absolute right to the property transferred free from the payment of any assessment, in other words, that order granted an exemption from payment of land revenue to all persons who might purchase lands from the Municipality. This is a contention which it is impossible to uphold. There are no words of exemption from liability to assessment in the Government order of 1889. No exemption can be claimed without a grant or exemption in express words. The construction to be placed on the order of 1889 would be that the transferees would obtain a title to the land under their transfers although the transferor might be a Municipal Council, i.e., to remove all objection to the transfer on the ground that the transferor is a Municipal Council, There is no reason for differing from the conclusion of the Lower Appellate Court. We dismiss the Second Appeal with costs.


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