# NADHA RAO PANTllULU BAHADUR GARU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 714
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-10-09
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, C. A. Vaidialingam, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nadha-rao-pantllulu-bahadur-garu-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-4940
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act XXX a/ 1947, ss.
3(2) and 8-Classification of land based on the settkment register without
factual inquiry-Jurisdiction of Civil Couris, if excluded.
Sub-section (2) of s. 3 of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent)
B
Act XXX of 1947 authorises the State Government to fix the rates of rent c
payable in respect of •ach class of ryoti land in each villa&e in the estate
after considenng the recommendations of the special officer
and the
remarks of the Board of Revenue thereon and by virtue of s. 8(1)
no order under this sub-section is liable to be questioned in a court of
law.
The appellants filed a suit questioning the legality of the notification reducing the rates of rent in respect of the delta dry ryo~ lands in
a village. They contended that the class of land had been determined to
be delta dry land exclusively on the
basis
of the settlement register
D
which did not contain any entry with respect to the village in question.
that the settlement register could not be considered to be conclusive, and
that proper factual inquiry was necessary, because,
tht:
determination
affected the appellant's proprietary rights.
The trial court decreed the
suit.
The High Court held that the civil courts had no jurisdiction to
entertain the suit Allowing the appeals,
HELD : The Special Officer had an obligation, under s. 2 of the
Reduction of Rent Act, to determine in respect of a village the average
rate of cash rent per acre fot each class of ryoti land in existence at the
time of the commencement of the Act, such as, wet, dry and garden.
Thi& bad to be determined on the tasis of relevant material. The Special
Officer, however, proceeded to found his determination only on the report
of the Special Assistant which only took into account the entry in the
settlement register with respect. to the
soil of another village.
Thio;
really meant that the determination of the Special Officer was solely
based on the settlement register containing no entry in regard to the
vill~e in question.
This material is irrelevant
and cannot constitute
a rational basis fdr founding thereon the determin'1tion of the Special
Officer.
His determination must. therefore. be held to be based on no
evid•nce, with._lhe result that it must be held to be in viol'1tion of the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
A fortiori
the order of
the· Government made under s. 3(2) exclusively on the basis of the
recommendation of the Specia1 Officer must in
consequence be held to
be not in conformity with the provisions of the Reduction of Rent Act
and. therefore. outside the pu'rview of s. 3(2) of that Act. Section 8( l)
would ac.cordingly be inaoplicable and the jurisdiction of civil courts
cannot be excluded. [724 F-725 CJ
Secretar;v of State v. Mask and Company.
(1940) 67 I.A.
222 and
0. K. Muthuswamv Mudaliar & Ors. v. State of Madras. C.A. Nos.
1011-1017.'65, dt. 31-7-68, referred to.
...
DhuJahhai and Ors. v. State of Madhya Prade.<h &
Ors.
[19681
S.C.R. 662, followed.
E
F
G
H
'
.!
PANTHULU. v. A. P .. STATI! (Dua, J.)
715
A
CIVIL APPllL~ATJ> lUIUSDICTIOJ'! :. Civil Appeals NP&. 1619
B
c
and 1620 of 1968.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 17, 1964
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suits Nos. "21 of
1959 and 362 of 1958 respectively.
D. Narsaraju, B. Parthasarathy and .Subbiz Rao •. 'fbi th~ appellants (in both the appeaJs) ~ · · · ·
·
·
.. . ·
.
.4. V. Ra,,gam, fortespondentsNiis; 1•3.: (in b<iththe.appeals).
K; R. Chaudhuri and K~· Ril;tindrti Chtiudruri, ·for re8pc)iident
No, 6 (iii. bOlli the appe~)• .
.. ·
· . ·

## Text

714
SHREE RAJA KANDREGULA SIUNIV ASA JAGAN·
A
NADHA RAO PANTllULU BAHADUR GARU
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
October 9, 1969
[J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act XXX a/ 1947, ss.
3(2) and 8-Classification of land based on the settkment register without
factual inquiry-Jurisdiction of Civil Couris, if excluded.
Sub-section (2) of s. 3 of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent)
B
Act XXX of 1947 authorises the State Government to fix the rates of rent c
payable in respect of •ach class of ryoti land in each villa&e in the estate
after considenng the recommendations of the special officer
and the
remarks of the Board of Revenue thereon and by virtue of s. 8(1)
no order under this sub-section is liable to be questioned in a court of
law.
The appellants filed a suit questioning the legality of the notification reducing the rates of rent in respect of the delta dry ryo~ lands in
a village. They contended that the class of land had been determined to
be delta dry land exclusively on the
basis
of the settlement register
D
which did not contain any entry with respect to the village in question.
that the settlement register could not be considered to be conclusive, and
that proper factual inquiry was necessary, because,
tht:
determination
affected the appellant's proprietary rights.
The trial court decreed the
suit.
The High Court held that the civil courts had no jurisdiction to
entertain the suit Allowing the appeals,
HELD : The Special Officer had an obligation, under s. 2 of the
Reduction of Rent Act, to determine in respect of a village the average
rate of cash rent per acre fot each class of ryoti land in existence at the
time of the commencement of the Act, such as, wet, dry and garden.
Thi& bad to be determined on the tasis of relevant material. The Special
Officer, however, proceeded to found his determination only on the report
of the Special Assistant which only took into account the entry in the
settlement register with respect. to the
soil of another village.
Thio;
really meant that the determination of the Special Officer was solely
based on the settlement register containing no entry in regard to the
vill~e in question.
This material is irrelevant
and cannot constitute
a rational basis fdr founding thereon the determin'1tion of the Special
Officer.
His determination must. therefore. be held to be based on no
evid•nce, with._lhe result that it must be held to be in viol'1tion of the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
A fortiori
the order of
the· Government made under s. 3(2) exclusively on the basis of the
recommendation of the Specia1 Officer must in
consequence be held to
be not in conformity with the provisions of the Reduction of Rent Act
and. therefore. outside the pu'rview of s. 3(2) of that Act. Section 8( l)
would ac.cordingly be inaoplicable and the jurisdiction of civil courts
cannot be excluded. [724 F-725 CJ
Secretar;v of State v. Mask and Company.
(1940) 67 I.A.
222 and
0. K. Muthuswamv Mudaliar & Ors. v. State of Madras. C.A. Nos.
1011-1017.'65, dt. 31-7-68, referred to.
...
DhuJahhai and Ors. v. State of Madhya Prade.<h &
Ors.
[19681
S.C.R. 662, followed.
E
F
G
H
'
.!
PANTHULU. v. A. P .. STATI! (Dua, J.)
715
A
CIVIL APPllL~ATJ> lUIUSDICTIOJ'! :. Civil Appeals NP&. 1619
B
c
and 1620 of 1968.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 17, 1964
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suits Nos. "21 of
1959 and 362 of 1958 respectively.
D. Narsaraju, B. Parthasarathy and .Subbiz Rao •. 'fbi th~ appellants (in both the appeaJs) ~ · · · ·
·
·
.. . ·
.
.4. V. Ra,,gam, fortespondentsNiis; 1•3.: (in b<iththe.appeals).
K; R. Chaudhuri and K~· Ril;tindrti Chtiudruri, ·for re8pc)iident
No, 6 (iii. bOlli the appe~)• .
.. ·
· . ·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered b)'.
Dwi, J. These two appeaJs (Civil Appehls Nos. 1619 and
1620 of 1968). on certificate by· the High Court arise out of the
same suit and are directed against a common judgment and .
. decree of the High Court disposing of . two cross-appeaJs presented in that Court and will, therefore, be disposed of by one
D
judgment. The principal question canvassed lies within a narrow
compass.
It relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to
entertain and decide· the present suit questioning ·. the . legality
of the notification Ex. A-13 dated November 2, 1949 reducing
the rates of rent in respect of the delta dry ryoti lands in village
Kalipatnam under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent)
E
Act XXX of-1947, (hereafter called the Reduction of Rent Act).
The trial Court decreed the suit in part but the High Court to
which both parties preferred appeals held that the Civil Courts
had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is this short question
which requires determination in these appeals.
·
It is unnecessary to state at length the past history of the
F
landed estate in question. The necessary relevant facts in brief
may only be . mentioned.
Shree Raja Kandregula Srinivasa
Jagannadha Rao Panthulu Bahadur was the Inamdar of village
Kalipatnam in Narsapuram Taluk in the West Godavari District.
· On Nov~mber 2, 1948, the Government · issued a notification
(Ex. A-13) under s. 3(2) of the Reduction of Rent Act reducinp; the rates of rent payable in respect of delta dry ryoti lands
G in Kalipatnam village.
J'!le Inam Settlemer.t Officer, Vijayawadha, then took proceedings to determine whether Kalipatnam
was an "inam estate"
as defined in s. 2(7) of the Ma4fas
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI
of 1948. After inquiry he made the order dated May 31, 1950
(Ex. A-1) holding that the suit village was an inam . estate.
H
Feeling aggrieved by these two orders the appellant ~instituted
the suit, out of which !he present appeals
arise.
The. short
question canvassed before 'ils, as observed earlier, is whether the
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
<
M3 Sup. Cl/70-1 s
716
SCJPUMJ! COURt- Rl!POR·TS
[1970] 2 S C.R
It may be stated at the outset that the appellant's counsel.
conceded at the bar that the question as to the kind of grant
can only be decided by the .1:'ribunal
appoint~ .unde~ the
Reduction of Rent Act and Civil Courts have no 1unsd1cllon to
adjudicate upon such a controversy.
The suit challenging the
validity of Ex. A-1 declaring Kalipatnam village as an
mam
estate was accordingly conceded to be incompetent.
Challenge
10 Ex. A-1 was thus not pressed in this Court. It was, however, s11bm!tted that any finding by ti. Civil C0urt on the 'kind
of atant would have to be QQJnpletely ignored by the Tribunal
while considering this question under the Reduction of Rent Act.
The submission seems to us to be justified.
Wo are thus left only with the relief sought in respect of
Bit. A·l3.
The appellant questioned the validity o( this notification on the ground that it cannot be considered in law to
have been made under s. 3 ( 2) of the Reduction of R1,,at Act
so as to be immune from challenge in the Civil Courts. ln
order to appreciate and deterraine this argument it is desirable
A
B
c
D
to tum lir!it to the provisions of the Reduction of Rent Act.
Tbls Act was enacted in order to pr->vide for the reduction of
rent5 payable by ryots in estates governed by the Madras Estates
Land Act, 1908 appmximately to the level of the assessments
levied on lands in ryotwari areas in the neighbourhood and for·
the collcction of such rents exclusively by the State Government.
The purpose of collection of rent exclusively by the State
Government was aclded in 1951 with retrospective effect.
The
heading of the Act, as originally enacted, was changed, on the
creation of Andhra Pradesh, to, A.P. (Andbra Area) Estates
Land (Reduction of Rent) Act XXX of 1947. Suitable adaptations necessitated by the creation of the separate Andhra Pradesh were also duly made. Section 2 of this Act which empowers
F
the State Government to appoint a .Special
Officer for
any
estate or estates for the purpQSe of rromunending fair and
equitable rates of rent for the ryoti land pmvidcs as under :
E
"Appointment of Special Ofiicer to recommend rates
of rent in estates.
2(a) (1) The State Government may
app<>fut a
Special Officer for any estate or estates for the purpose
of reoomm~ndin~ fair and equitable rates of rent for the
ryoti land in such estate or estates.
(b) The Special Officer so appointed shall also
~lllJ;De!ld fair and equitablo 'l'iltes of
rent .for Ill
lands in suc11 estato or estatos which bocime ryOli lands
. after the cQllll!lancomtnt ·of the Act
.G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PANTHULU v. A. P. STATE (Dua, J.)
(2) The Special Officer shall first determine in
respect of each village
(hereinafter in this section
referred to as "principal village") in an estate :-
(a) the average rate of cash rent per acre prevailing at the commencement of this Act for each
class of ryoti land which was in existence in the principal village at such commencement, such as wet, dry
and garden;
Provided that where no cash rents are prevalent
in the principal village in respect of any class of land,
the Special Officer shall determine the average rate of
cash rent per acre prevailing at such commencement
for.suer class of land in the nearest village in the estate
in which cash rents are prevalent for such class
of
land and in which conditions are generally similar to
those obtaining in the. principal village, or where there
is no s11ch village in the estate, in the nearest ·village
in the nearest estate in respect of which village both
the requirements specified above are satisfied;
717
(b) the average rate of assessment per acre prevailing
at such commencement in respect of each of the said
classes of land in the nearest ryotwari area in which,
conditions are ·general!v similar to those obtaining in
the principal village.
·
( 3 ) The Special Officer sliall then compare
the
average
rates of cash rent as
determined under
clause (a) of sub-section (2) with the average rates
of assessment as determined under clause (b) of that
sub-section, and after making due allowance for any
difference in' the conditions prevailing in the two cases.
and a.lso in. cases falling
under the proviso to
clalISe (a) of sub-section (2), for any difference in the
conditions prevailing in the village referred to in that
proviso and in the principal village, determine (i) the
extent, if any, to which the rates of rent payable for
each class of ryoti land in the principal village should,
in his opinion, be reduced and (ii) the rates of' rent
payable for each such class of lands after such reduction.
Explanation I. The Special Officer shall have power
only to determine that the rents payable for. any class
of ryoti land in the principal village shall be reduced;
and he shall have no power t<> determine that such
rents shall be enhanced.
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
Explanation 2.
The extent of reduction, if any,
determined by the Special Officer under this sub-section
shall also apply where rent in the principal village is
paid in kind or on the estimated value of a portion of
the crop or at rates varying with the crop; whether in
cash or in kind, or partly in one of these ways and partly
in another, or partly in one or· more of these ways and
partly in cash. In every such case the Special Officer
shall also determine the rent payable, whether in kind
or in cash or partly in kind and partly in cash, as the
case may be.
(3-A) In the case of lands in an estate
which
became ryoti lands after the commencew.ent of this Act,
the Special Officer shall determine for each class
of
such lands in the principal village the rates of rent
per acre payable therefor under this A~t. The rates
of rent so determined shall be the same as those fixed
under sub-section (2) of section 3 for similar
ryoti
lands in the same village;
Provided that where the rates
of rent payable
in respect of ryoti lands in the principal village have not
been fixed under sub-section (2) of section 3, or where
there are no similar ryoti lands in the principal village,
the rates of rent so determined shall be the same as those
fixed under sub-section (2) of section 3 for similar ryoti
lands in the rtearest village in the estate, or, 1f there is
no such village. in the nearest village in the nearest
estate in which conditions are generally
similar
to
:hose obtaining in the principal village.
("') Where the conditions in a group of two or
more villages in an estate are generally
similar the
Special Officer may perform the functions under subsections 2, 3 and 3-A in respect of such group of
villages as a whole, instead of separately in
respect
cf each village in the group."
Section 3 so far as relevant for our purpose may now
be reproduced.
"Power of State .Government to reduce rates of rent after
considering Special Officer's recommendations.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
3 (I) "After completing his work in any estate,
the Special Officer
sh~ll submit
his
recommendations to ihe State Government through the Board of
H
Revenue specifying in case of ryoti lands which were
in existence at the commencement of this Act, ( i) the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PANTIIULU v. A. P. STATE (Dua, J.)
exient, if any, to which the rents for ea.ch
cla_ss of
such lands in each village or group of VIilages m the
estate, should in his opinion, be reduced and (ii) the
rate of rent payable for each such class
after . such
reduction, and in the' case of lands in each village
or group o~ villages in the estate which became ryoti
land after the commencement of this Act, the rate of
rent determined ··by him in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-A) of section 2.
719
( 2) After considering the recommendations of t4e
Special Officer and the remarks of the Board of Revenue thereon, the State Government shall, by order published in the Fort. St. George Gazette, fix the rates of
rent payable in respect of each class of ryoti land in
each village in the estate."
"Provided that where the rate of rent so fixed in respect of any class of ryoti lands which were in existence
at the commencement of this Act, or in respect of any
class of lands which became ryoti lands in any fasli year
after such commencement exceeds the rate of rent payable in respect thereof at such commencement or in that
fasli year, as the case may be, only ihe latter rate of
rent shall be payable in respect of such land.
· It is not necessary to reproduce the rest of the sections. Section
7 empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the
purpose of the Act and s: 8 ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts of
Law to question the validity of, certain orders and proceedings. '
Section 8 reads as under :
"Validity of certain orders anJ proceedings not to be questioned.
8. The .validity of the following orciers and proceedmgs shall not be liable to be ques,;oned in any Court of
Law.
( i) any order made under sectiOill 3 sub-section ( 2) ;
(ii) any recovery ' of rent effected by the Provincial
Government under section 3 sub-section ( 4) or
any payment made by them to the landholder .
under the same sub-section;
(ii-a) any order i;nade under sectiOillS 3a and 3c;
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 s.c.R.
(iii) any detennination of the net income Of average
net income or average net income made under
section 5, rnb-section (2)."
A
The precise question requiring decision by us is whether the
present suit questioning the validity of the fixation of rent in ExA-13 is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts by
B
virtue of s. 8(i). There is no dispute that clause (i) is the only
relevant clause to be consider~d in this connection. The appellant's learned counsel submitted that the exclusion of jurisdiction
of the Civil Co1f18 cannot be extended to orders which were not
'·
made in strict compliance with the provisions of s. 3 (2) because
unless so made they cannot be considered to be hit by s. 8 ( i) . ·
According to the respondent's learned counsel, on the other hand,
C
Ex. A-13 was made pursuant to the power conferred by s. 3(2)
and is therefore covered by s. 8(i). He further submitted that
there being a complete machinery provided by the statute itself
for challenging the orders made in proceedings taken thereunder,
the Civil Courts are precluded from considering the correctness of
those orders. According to him ss. 3A and 3B provide for rectiD
fication of errors committed by the Special Officer ·and that looking
at the statutory scheme it must be held that an order purporting to
be made under s. 3 ( 2) of the Reduction -Of Re~t Act is immune
from challenge in the Civil Courts.
The general prinoiple on which the jurisdiction of Civil Courts
can· successfully be excluded in respect of decisions by special
Tribunals is well settled. The difficulty usually arises in its application to given cases.
As observed by the Privy Council in
Secretary of State v. Mask and Company(') the exclusion of the
jurisdiction of the Civil Courts must either be explicity expressed
E
or clearly implied. ;Further even if the jurisdiction is so excluded
the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into the cases where
F
the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the
statutory Tribunal has not acted in COtnformiiy with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. It is unnecessary to refer
to other cases dealing with this question. We need only refer to
the recent decision of this Court in Dhulabhai and others v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh .and another( 2 ) in which after an exhaustive discussion of the case Jaw the legal position was summarised by the Court speaking through Hidayatullah, C.J. as
follows :
G
" ( 1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders
of the special tribunal the Civil Courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adeH
quate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would
·----
(!) [1940] 67 I.A. 222.
(2) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 662.
A
B
c
D
E
·F
G
H
(2)
(3)
(4)
PANTHULU v. A. P. STATE (Dua, J.)
normally do in a suit. Such provision, however,
does not exclude those cases where the. provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted
in conformity with the fundamental principles
of judicial procedure.
Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction
of the court, an e::amination of the scheme of
the particular Act to find the adequacy or the
sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction
of the civil court.
Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheine of the
particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry
may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or
a liability and provides for the determination of
the right 6r liability and further lays down that
all questions about the said right and liability
shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated
with actions in Civil Courts are prescribed by the
said statute or not.
Challenge io the provisions of the particular Act
·as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals
constituted under that Act. Even the High Court
camnot go into that question on a revision or re•
ference from the decision o{ the Tribunals.
When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the unconstitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ
of certiorari may include a direction for refund
if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed
by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory
remedy to replace a suit.
(~) Where the particular Act contains no machinery
for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit. lies.
( 6) Questions of the correct.ness of the ·assessment
apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not
lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to
be final or there is an express prohibition in the
721
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
particular Act. In either case the scheme of the
particular Act must be examined because it is
relevant enquiry.
(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court is not. readily to be inferred unless the
conditions above set down apply."
According to the appellant's counsel the first proposition covers
the present case. He submitted that there is no statutory definition
to which one can turn for the purpose of determining wet, dry and
garden lands as contemplated by the Reduction of Rent Act. The
matter has therefore necessarily to be decided by holding an inquiry
into the factual position.
This, the counsel argued, was not done.
We were taken through the relevant portions of Ex. B-24 which is
a report from the Special Assistant to the Special Officer for rent
reduction.
It is observed therein that there are no wet or garden
lands in village Kalipatnam and that the entire land is delta dry
in which wet paddy is raised under Kalipatnam project channel.
The ryots pay to the Government Rs. 5/- per acre by way of water
rate. It \'las emphasised by the appellant's learned counsel that
the fact that wet paddy is raised in this land, which is described
as delta dry and that water rate is paid to the Government, must
conclusively show that the land is not delta dry but wet. It is the.
factual position and not bare entry in the settlement register which
should be the guiding factor. Support for this submission was also
sought from the recent unreported decision of this Court in O. K.
Muthuswamy Mudaliar & Ors. v. State of Madras('), in which
the following observations occur :
"The mere fact that the lands are registered dry does
not- affect their value.
The lands aTe fertile and are
cultivated with wet crop. They are irrigable with the
waters of the river Bhavani.
There is abundant supply
of water throughout the year. The landowners had the
.right to take wateT for the irrigation of 400 acres."
In this connection the appellaint's learned counsel also criticised
the following observation in the judgment of the High Court :
"In the Statements Ex. B-5 and Ex. B-6, furnished
by the plaintiff himself, the classification of the land is
shown as dry though it is also mentioned that the lands
were cultivated with double crop of paddy. If a proprietor owns a certain land but does not own the water
source from which water is being taken for irrigating
that land, he will not be in a position to classify it as wet
land for the benefit of claiming re.nt for himself in the
same way as he would be if he owned a water source
and supplied wBter therefrom as a guaranteed supply to
A
B
c
D
E
F•
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PANTHULU v. A. P. STATE (Dua, J.)
lands registered under that sour~e as ayacut. In the present case, water, was Government water which was
brought from Government project."
723
On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that this c'.)servation is un.sound and is not supportable by any provision of Jaw.
The respondent's counsei was unable to support this ob•ervation
of the High Court.
Reverting to Ex. B-24 Kalipatnam village was compa~ed with
Losaragutlapadu, an adjacent village. In regard to that village
also it is mentioned that there is an extensive wet cultivation in
delta dry land under project channels as in Kalipatnam. Shri J.
Sarnbamurthy, to whose inspection note dated July 1, 1948 reference is made in Ex. B-24 appeared as D.W. 5 and the counsel
took us through bis statement.
In cross-examination he deposed
as follows :
"I cannot say whether there are 4,000 acres of land
which are double· crop land.
There are some lands in
which double crops are grown.
I cannot say · their
extent. There are small extents of garden lands. There
are single crop lands under extension channel.
All these
lands are treated as dry lands rents reduced. The Kalipatnam is at the tail end of the delta .... The Losaragutlapadu is in Bhirnavaram taluk. Y anamadula Drain
intervenes Kalipatnam and Losaragutlapadu. Gollavanithippa lands have come under cultivation previously. It
is part of Losaragutlapadu.
I cannot say whether there
are 11,000 acres of land uncultivated in Losaragutlapadu.
Probably it is forest area. There were small
extents of land in Muthyalapalli llllld Vempa under the
Project Channel. Ex. B-4 shows that there are lands
of double crop. Under the Act the plaintiff has to
furnish a statement of lands etc.
The plaintiff's a!!e!lt
furnished Exhibit B-6.
-
The
soil
of Losaragutlapadu
was
examined.
This is contained in Exhibit B-24. The Settlement
Officer classifi.ed the soils under contained Diglot Regis··
ters.
An extract of it is contained in Exhibit B.24.
I cannot say readily now without reference to Settlement Manual what the figures given in th.e Diglot Register are relating to the soils.
That statement contained
in the file relates to the Losaragutlapadu. A similar
statement for Ka!ipatnam was not taken.
There is no
such statement for that village. I did not write to the
Settlement Department to prepare such a statement for
suit village. T do not know whether the Government
\
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970) 2 S.C.R.
analise the soil through Agricultu:ai Department before
the project was started .......... I examined the soils
at one or two places and I consulted the Settlement Rei;ister at 'that time.
I cannot say whether those one or.
tlrn places were under extension project. I remember
I have taken d.~scription of the soil from the Settlement
Register and Manual. . . . . . I do not know about the
c0nstruction of the project.''
Shri J. Satyanarayana, Tahsildar, who appeared as D.W. 7
stated in his cross-examination that the lands in Kalipatnam were
sancti0ned with two crops, though he could not say whether
they were under cultivatfon since 1948. He was also unable to
say whether the settlement register from Kalipatnam was available in Taluk Office.
According to him water rate in the year
1958 was increased 50% for all lands including Kalipatnam.
The ce.ss was also increased proportionately.
He was unable to
explain the figures given under the description of the soil
in
Ex. B-24. and indeed he expressed his ignorance
about
the
existence of any regbter for Kalipatnam on this subject.
The appellant's argument strongly pressed before
us
was
that the class of land had been determined to be delta dry land
exclusi>ely on the basis of the settlement register which did
not contain any entry with respect . to Kalipatnrun.
The entry
in the settlement register with respect to the soil of LosaragutJapadu could not be taken to cover the soil in Kalipo.tnam in
the absence of evidence that the soil in these two villages was
simila~ in this respect.
Stress was also Jed on the submission
tha• description in the settlement register could not be considered
to be conclusive and that proper factual inquizy was necessary
because the determination affects
the
appellant's -·proprietary
rights.
The submission appears to us to possess merit.
The
Special Officer had an obligation under s. 2 of the Reduction
of Rent Act to determine in respect of Kalipatnam village the
average rate of cash rent per acre for each class of ryoti land in
existence at the time of the commencement of the Act, such as,
wet, dry and gard~. This had to be determined on the basis of
relevant material.
The Special Officer, however, proceeded to
found his determination only on the report of the Special Assistant
(Ex. B-24) which, as discussed above, only took into account the
entry in the &ettlement register with respect to the soil of Losaragutlapadu.
This really means that the determination of the Special
Officer is solely based on the settlement register containing no entry
in regard to Kalipatnam.
This material is irrelevant and cannot
constitute a rational basis for founding;·thereon the determination
of the Special Officer.
His determination must, therefore, be held
A
B
c
D
E
r
G
K
PANTHULU v. A. P. STATE (Dua, J.)
725
A
to be based on no evidMce, with the result that it must be held to
be in yioiation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
A fortiori the order ci the Government made under s. 3(2) exdusively on the basis of the recommendation of the Special Officer
must in consequence be held to be not in conformity with the
provisions of the Reduction of Rent Act and, therefore, outside
B
the purview of s. 3(2) of that Act.
Section 8(i) would accordingly be inapplicable and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts cannot
be excluded.
The notification Ex. A-13 must, therefore, be struck
dow.n as contrary to Jaw and ultra vires the Reduction ol Rent
Act.
We accordingly allow the appeals with costs and strike down
C
the report of the Special Officer as also the notification Ex. A-13.
As observed earlier challenge to Exhibit A-1 was not pressed at
the hearing by the appellant.
It would be open to the authorities
concerned to proceed to reduce the rent in accordance with law.
One set of costs.
Y.P.
Appeals allowed.