Case: Sree Raja Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannadharao Panthulu Bahadur Garu (dead) by his legal representatives Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Others

that land, he will not be in a position to classify it as wet land for the benefit of claiming rent for himself in the same way as he would be if he owned a water source and supplied water therefrom as a guranteed supply to lands registered under that source as ayacut. In the present case, water, was Government water which was brought from Government project. 11. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that this observation is unsound and is not supportable by any provision of law. The respondents Counsel was unable to support this observation of the High Court. 12. Reverting to Exhibit B-24 Kalipatnam village was compared 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. Sambamurthy, to whose inspection note, dated 1st July, 1948 reference is made in Exhibit B-24 appeared as D.W. 5 and the Counsel took us through his 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 Losara-gutlapadu is in Bhimavaram taluk Yanamadula 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 and Vempa under the Project Channel. Exhibit B-4 shows that there are lands of double crop. Under the Act the plaintiff has to furnish a statement of lands, etc. The plaintiffs agent furnished Exhibit B-6. The soil of Losaragutlapadu was examined. This is contained in Exhibit B-24. The Settlement Officer classified the soils under contained Diglot Registers. 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 the Diglot Register are relating to the soils. That statement contained in the file relates to the Losaragutlapadu. A similar statement for Kalipatnam 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. I do not know whether the Government analyse the soil through Agricultural Department before the project was started. I examined the soils at one or two places and I consulted the settlement register at that time. I cannot say whether those one or two places were under extension project. I remember I have taken description of the soil from the settlement register and Manual…. I do not know about the construction of the project. 13. Shri J. Satyanarayana, Tahsildar, who appeared as D.W. 7 stated in his cross-examination that the lands in Kalipatnam were sanctioned with two crops, though he could not say whether they were under cultivation since 1948. He was also unable to say whether the settlement register for Kalipatnam was available in Taluk Office. According to him water rate in the year 1958 was increased 50 per cent, for all lands including Kalipatnam. The cess was also increased proportionately. He was unable to explain the figures given under the description of the soil in Exhibit B-24 and indeed he expressed his ignorance about the existence of any register for Kalipatnam on this subject. 14. The appellants argument strongly pressed before us was that the class of land had been determined to be delta dry land exclusively on the basis of the settlement register which did not contain any entry with respect to Kalipatnam. The entry in the settlement register with respect to the soil of Losaragutlapadu could not be taken to cover the soil in Kalipatnam in the absence of evidence that the soil in these two villages was similar in this respect. Stress was also laid on the submission that description in the settlement register could not be considered to be conclusive and that proper factual inquiry was necessary because the determination affects the appellants proprietary rights. The submission appears to us to possess merit. The Special Officer had an obligation under section 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 garden. 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 (Exhibit B-24).which, as discussed above, only took into account the entry in the settlement 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 to be based 6n no evidence, with the result that it must be held to be in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. A fortiori the order of the Government made under section 3 (2) exclusively 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 the purview of section 3 (2) of that Act. Section 8 (i) would accordingly be inapplicable and the jurisdiction of civil Courts cannot be excluded. The notification Exhibit A-13 must, therefore, be struck down as contrary to law and ultra vires the Reduction of Rent Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The submission seems to us to be justifiedThere is no dispute that clause (i) the only relevant clause to be considered in this connection.8. The general principle 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 explicitly expressed or clearly implied. Further even if the jurisdiction is so excluded the civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into the cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity 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, in which after an exhaustive discussion of the case law the legal position was summarised by the Court speaking through Hidayatullah, C.J., as follows:(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 adequate remedy to do what the civil Courts would 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(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, an examination 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 CourtWhere there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme 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 or 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(3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals:(4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality 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(5) 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 correctness 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 particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply13. Shri J. Satyanarayana, Tahsildar, who appeared as D.W. 7 stated in hisn that the lands in Kalipatnam were sanctioned with two crops, though he could not say whether they were under cultivation since 1948. He was also unable to say whether the settlement register for Kalipatnam was available in Taluk Office. According to him water rate in the year 1958 was increased 50 per cent, for all lands including Kalipatnam. The cess was also increased proportionately. He was unable to explain the figures given under the description of the soil in Exhibit4 and indeed he expressed his ignorance about the existence of any register for Kalipatnam on this subjectThe submission appears to us to possess merit. The Special Officer had an obligation under section 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 garden. 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 (Exhibit, as discussed above, only took into account the entry in the settlement 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 to be based 6n no evidence, with the result that it must be held to be in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. A fortiori the order of the Government made under section 3 (2) exclusively 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 the purview of section 3 (2) of that Act. Section 8 (i) would accordingly be inapplicable and the jurisdiction of civil Courts cannot be excluded. The notification Exhibit3 must, therefore, be struck down as contrary to law and ultra vires the Reduction of Rent Act.