AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Abdur Rahman, J.—This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a certain site which was granted to the defendant by the Government
on patta on certain conditions. The defendant failed to comply with those conditions and the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the assignment in
accordance with the terms of the patta and the Tahsildar assigned the site on the 30th August, 1931 to the present plaintiff. The only contention
raised before me is that the suit for possession by the present plaintiff was not competent and that it was incumbent upon the Government to
proceed u/s 6 of the Land Encroachment Act and thus give him a right of appeal to the revenue authorities and failing that, to bring a civil suit within
six months. Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act gives a summary remedy to the Collector but does not take away the right of the Government
to proceed in a civil Court or the right of the assignee of the Government to obtain an assignment of the land after the lease had been cancelled and
proceed against the previous lessee in a civil Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant wished to rely on Bhaskaradu v. Subbarayudu (1913) 26
M.L.J. 60 : ILR Mad. 674 but that has no application to the facts of the present case. The defendant-appellant can have no legitimate grievance if
he, instead of being compelled to sue in a civil Court, is forced to come to the civil Court as a defendant in a suit instituted either by the
Government or by the Government''s assignee. The contention that the terms or conditions of the patta were complied with was not seriously
pressed even before the lower appellate Court and nothing has been said here which would incline me to take a view different from what was
taken by the learned District Judge. The appellant alleged that he had erected foundations on the patta land after the expiry of the lease at a cost of
something like Rs. 250 and by this procedure he has been deprived of the compensation that he might have been able to persuade the revenue
authorities to pay or to deal with him a little more leniently. I cannot however take notice of this fact. He should have asked for compensation in his
written statement if he thought he was entitled to any.
For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed. But in the circumstances I leave the parties to bear their own costs.
Leave to appeal is refused.