Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.75 seconds)Section 168 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 172 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Lieutenant Srinivasa Rajamani Rajah ... vs Senapathi Jagannayakulu And Ors. on 25 November, 1931
8. The view that they had jurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari in the present case was taken by the High Court of Madras as the result of a line of recent decisions in that Court. At one time it had been held that the Board of Revenue exercised its functions under Chap. XI of the Madras Estates Land Act as a civil Court, and was subject as such to the revisional jurisdiction entrusted to the High Court by Section 107 of the Government of India Act and Section 115 of the Code. This opinion, however, was overruled by a full bench in Rajah of Mandasa v. Jagannayakulu (1932) 63 M.L.J. 450 F.B. Their Lordships have no doubt that the decision of the full bench was, on this point, correct; but in so saying they must not be taken to decide that the Board of Revenue in any of its functions is a Court subject to the High Court's appellate jurisdiction within the language of Section 107 of the Act, or a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code. The line of decisions which in the end affirmed the jurisdiction to proceed by certiorari may be taken as beginning with In re Nataraja Iyer (1912) I.L.R. 36 Mad. 72, where the Revenue Divisional Officer of Ariyalur had directed the prosecution of the applicant for giving false evidence by an affidavit sworn in proceedings under the Income-tax Act of 1886. The two learned Judges who decided that case agreed that on the merits no writ of certiorari should issue, but they differed on the question of jurisdiction. Sundara Ayyar J. held that there was no jurisdiction. He was satisfied (p. 80) :
Section 107 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Velluri Narasinha Rao, Proprietor Of ... vs The Ryots Of Pedamamidipalli on 28 October, 1925
52. The view taken by the majority of the Collective Board of Revenue in making the order dated October 19, 1936, which is now complained of, is that the requirement to "have regard to" the provisions in question have no more definite or technical meaning than that of ordinary usage, and only requires that these provisions must be taken into consideration. In their view, the prime duty of the Revenue Officer under Chap. XI is to fix a fair and equitable rent, and though he must be guided by the principles underlying such provisions as are contained in Chap. III, he is not strictly bound by such provisions. Having regard to the long time that had elapsed since the last tentative settlement of rent in 1867-8, to the prodigious rise in prices that had taken place since then, and to the general economic improvement of this part of the country, the Collective Board considered that an enhancement of 37 1/2 per cent. would not be oppressive, and directed the Revenue Officer to reduce to that figure the enhancement of 100 per cent, which he had made. This view of the effect of the direction to "have regard to" the provisions of the Act for determining rates of rent payable by a ryot is supported by the decision of the High Court in the case of Valluri Narasimha Rao v. The Ryots of Peddamamidipalli (1927) I.L.R. 49 Mad. 499 at p. 506.