AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.—This second appeal preferred by the plaintiff raises a simple question. He contends that, in respect of agricultural
lands for which he has been assessed to property tax by the Municipal Council, Salem, he is not the owner, as the lands are ryoti in the possession
of occupancy ryots. He has to be assessed not on the kudiwaram but only on the basis of his melwaram right. Section 81(4)(b) of the Madras
District Municipalities Act contemplates an assessment on the land-holder and the tenants. Whether the ryots can be described as tenants when
they have occupancy rights is a question with which we are not now concerned. The plaintiff is certainly a landholder within the meaning of the
Madras Estates Land Act. Granting that the definition of the Estates Land Act will not apply, we have to find out whether he comes within the
description of "" owner '': on whom the assessment is to be levied u/s 86 of the Act. "" Owner "" is defined in Section 3(17) as including a person who
receives or is entitled to receive the rent or the profits of the property. The plaintiff is such a person as he receives rent--at any rate he receives the
profits of the property. Whether a person in the position of the appellant can be assessed to property-tax on the basis of his melwaram right was
considered in Chairman, Municipal Council, The Chairman, Municipal Council and Another Vs. Sri Rajah Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju
Bahadur Guru, , where the question arose whether he could be assessed on the basis, of the kudiwaram interest also; and it was held that he could
not be as the kudiwaram belonged not to him but to the ryots. The idea underlying the Act is that a person who owns property is liable to
assessment of property-tax; and it does not seem to be necessary that he should own the entire interest in agricultural land. The Act itself makes a
distinction between the interest of the landholder and the interest of the person who cultivates the land, be he a cultivating tenant or a tenant with
permanent rights of occupancy.
The second appeal is hence dismissed with costs. No leave.