Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. In the circumstances given above Ebrahim Aboobakar and Hawabai Aboobakar apply for the writs of 'certiorari', prohibition and 'mandamus' under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. Basing himself on 'Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi', 70 Ind App 129 (PC), Mr. Basant Krishan Khanna, Advocate-General, urges a preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition giving rise to these proceedings. The objection raised is that this Court has no jurisdiction to make an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when that order is to take effect outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The objection put in this form seems to me to be plainly unacceptable.

15. In order to appreciate the point decided by their Lordships of the Privy Council in '70 Ind App 129 (PC)' it is necessary to bear in mind the facts of that case. In that case the appellants before their Lordships were 'ryots' of three villages included in the Parlakimedi estate in the district of Ganjam and the respondents were the Zamindar of Parlakimedi and Board of Revenue at Madras. In October, 1925, the Zamindar applied, under Chapter II, Madras Estates Land Act, for the settlement of rent in respect of three villages, and, by a supplemental application in March, 1926, he applied for settlement of a "fair and equitable rent" under Section 168 (1) of the Act. The Government of Madras in November, 1927, directed the Special Revenue Officer of the district to settle a fair and equitable rent in respect of lands in the said villages. In 1935 the Special Revenue Officer made an order doubling the previous rents. On the 'ryots' appeal to the Board of Revenue, a member of that Board sitting alone reversed the decision of the Special Revenue Officer and allowed an increase of rent of only 12 1/2 per cent, considering himself bound by proviso (b) of Clause (1) of Section 30. The Zamindar appealed by way of revision to the Collective Board of Revenue from the decision of the single member. The Collective Board on 9th October, 1936, decided by a majority of two members to one, that proviso (b) of Section 30 (1) did not apply to the casa. On the other hand, they were not prepared to endorse so drastic an enhancement of rent as 100 per cent, and fixed as the appropriate increase, an enhancement of six annas in the rupee On 9th February, 1937, the 'ryots' petitioned the Madras High Court for a writ of 'certiorari' to quash the order of the Collective Board of Revenue, complaining that the rents had been raised above the limit of 12 1/2 per cent, which was the maximum increase permitted under Section 30 (1) (b) of the Act. On 5th November, 1937, the Madras High Court held that if the section of the statute applied so that no increase beyond 12 1/2 per cent, could lawfully be made, the appellants would be entitled to a writ of 'certiorari' addressed to the Board of Revenue to correct the illegality, but that in the circumstances the Board of Revenue had power to enhance by 37 1/2 per cent. The petition for the writ was, therefore, dismissed. From the order passed by the High Court dismissing the 'ryots' petition for the writ of 'certiorari' the 'ryots' of Garabandho and other villages went up on appeal to His Majesty in Council.

18. Finding that the Madras High Court had no jurisdiction or authority to issue writs of 'certiorari' against persons who were outside the jurisdiction of that Court, their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the High Court at Madras could not claim jurisdiction over parties not otherwise subject to its jurisdiction 'solely' by reason of the fact that the Board of Revenue had their office in the town of Madras. In '70 Ind App 129 (PC)' there was an order passed by the Board of Revenue in favour of Zamindar of Parlakimedi. The 'ryots' of Garabandho and other villages wanted that order to be quashed and in those circumstances the Privy Council found that inasmuch as the Zamindar of Parlakimedi was not within the jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of 'certiorari'. In the present case the sole respondent is within the territories in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction and I have no doubt that this Court has power to issue the writs claimed in the petition provided the conditions for the issuance of such writs are satisfied.

44. The facts in the 'Parlakimedi case' referred to by Kapur J. and dealt with by their Lordships of the Privy Council (ILR (1944) Mad 457) were as follows. The appellants before the Privy Council were ryots of three villages included in the Parlakimedi estate in the district of Ganjam in the Northern Circars. The respondents were (1) the Zamindar of Parlakimedi and (2) the Board of Revenue at Madras. In October, 1325, the Zamindar applied, under Chapter II, Madras Estates Land Act, for the settlement of rent in respect of these villages, and, by a supplemental application in March 1926, he applied for settlement of a 'fair and equitable rent' under Section 168 (1) of the Act. The Government of Madras in November 1927, directed the Special Revenue Officer of the district to settle a fair and equitable rent in respect of lands in the said villages. After memoranda had been submitted by the contesting parties and after elaborate investigation on the spot, the Special Revenue Officer In 1925 made an order doubling the previous rents. On the ryots' appeal to the Board of Revenue, a member of that Board sitting alone reversed this decision and allowed an increase of rent of only 12 1/2 per cent. The Zamindar appealed by way of revision to the Collective Board of Revision from the decision of the single member. The Collective Board on 9th October, 1936, increased the rent to 37 1/2 per cent. On 9th February 1937, the appellants petitioned the Madras High Court for a writ of 'certiorari' to quash the order of the Collective Board of Revenue. On 5th November 1937 the Madras High Court dismissed the application for the writ. Before their Lordships of the Privy Council the question raised was whether the Madras High Court had any jurisdiction to issue the writ, the contention of the appellants being that it had. Their Lordships held that the High Court of Madras had no power to issue writs of certiorari outside the Presidency Town of Madras unless the person to whom the writ was directed was a British subject and that in the case before them as both the ryots and the Zamindar were not and were outside the limits of the town of Madras and as also the Special Revenue Officer, who dealt with the matter in the first instance, was outside the limits, the mere fact that the Board of Revenue had its office in Madras did not give the Madras High Court the power to issue a writ. Their Lordships thought that the question of jurisdiction must be regarded as one of substance and that it was not within the competence of the Madras High Court to issue a writ.