Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.64 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Orissa Land Encroachment Act, 1947
Sri Raja Venkata Rangayya Appa Rao ... vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 18 December, 1912
In Rama Rao v. Secretary of State for India 1913 M.W.N. 639 the resumption was set aside on the ground that the land, which was Nattanmai inam, could not be localised. Benson and Sundara Aiyar, JJ. observed that there was no evidence that the plaintiff was in possession of the inam lands. So much for the authorities cited. As to the principle involved, prima facie what cannot be identified cannot be resumed. This is self-evident; but if the doctrine be strictly applied, it must lead to obvious inconvenience and injustice. It has therefore been rightly held that whether localised or not, if the land has been proved to be in the party's possession, he can be called on to pay the assessment thereon. This is the effect of the decisions; but even in such a case steps should be taken to demarcate the land. Ex hypothesi it is impossible to localise the plot, but that does not absolve the Government from the duty of setting apart some specific land as being liable for the quit-rent. As against the Crown a subject has an undoubted right to relinquish his holding and thus free himself from the burden of the assessment. To refuse to mark off the land, would be to deny to him this right. When portions of the inam, as is alleged in the present case, have passed by alienation into the hands of third parties, the situation becomes still more complicated. It may be that the alienee is able to prove to demonstration, that the portion in his possession never comprised the land saught to be resumed. To impose the assessment upon the whole village generally, would be in such a case a very harsh step. If the owners consent, there can be no difficulty in Government demarcating the land. In the absence of the necessary consent, the Government is bound to take appropriate "action with a view to setting apart the land and apportioning the liability.* If the several owners or the several co-sharers prove obstructive, the Court will undoubtedly take notice of that fact when deciding the case where the question of the propriety of the Government's action is raised.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sankarappa Naiken vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 6 April, 1910
19. With this observation I am unable to agree. The idea underlying the passage is, that the levying of the assessment, by which is, meant the collecting of the amount, furnishes the cause of action both as to the declaration and the refund. With great deference, that assumption is wrong; the moment the order of "resumption is made, the plaintiff's right to seek a declaration (if he chooses to exercise it), comes into existence. The question is, whether the order amounts to a proceeding under the Act. This has not been considered and the very point to be decided has been assumed. I therefore respectfully dissent from Sankarappa Naickin v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1910) 20 M.L.J. 977 and it is unnecessary to deal with any subsequent decision where the view expressed in it has been approved. For these reasons, so far as the prayer for declaration is concerned, I am clearly of the opinion that Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act does not apply. .