Echikan Charakare Kelu Nair vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 21 January, 1925
In regard to the second plea, it must be said that the authority on the point is scanty and the question must be determined mainly with reference to general principles. It is now established that the proprietorship of the ryotwari holder in his holding is subject to the prerogative which the Crown has, according to the common law of India of imposing by an executive act, assessment on land and varying it from time to time. The right of the Government to assess land to land revenue and to vary it is not a right created or conferred by any, statute but, as stated above, the Crown possesses the prerogative of exacting from a subject holding arable land, its share of the produce or the equivalent of such produce. See observations of Bhashyam Aiyangar, J., in Bell v. The Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras (1902) ILR 25 M 457 at 482 : 12 MLJ 208 and Madathapu Ramaya v. The Secretary of State for India (1903) ILR 27 M 386 at 396 : 14 MLJ 37 and of Subramania Aiyar, J. in Madathapu Ramaya v. The Secretary of State for India (1903) ILR 27 M 386 at 388 : 14 MLJ 37.