AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jaganmahan Reddy, J.—These are two petitions for the issue of a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate wrttl or order directing the Respondents to forbear from taking any proceedings in pursuance of an 4127 dated 13-8-1953 of. the Deputy Tahsildar of lahasti, Chittoor District. 1''he Petitioner in JP. 565/55 H.R. Rama Rao, alleges that he had itatned in. 1952 from the Government a mining e in respect of iron-ore mines statute in Siraiiwibedu village in Kalahasti Taluk in Chittoor .strict, executed by the Government in favour the Petitioner on 15-9-1953: that the pettier employed Messrs. Murugappa Agencies of dras, the Petitioners in W. P. 566/55, who are lders of a certificate of approval from the Government to work the mines and raise the ore; d that the ore so got was sold by the .Petitioner , the said Murugappa Agencies at a particular the and thereafter they deal with the ore as their ,viir It is stated that the Deputy Tahsildar of has addressed a letter D. 4127 dated 12-8-1955 Ffcvying a cess of Rs. 15,693-7-0 as arrears and Rs. "126-11-6 as current cess payable on the rent and xoyalty in respect of the mining lease which levy "was objected to on the ground that the rent and royalty cannot be incurred in the annual ren land the levy of the cess with retrospective eilect is beyond the powers of the Respondents. The Respondent, it is further contended, were proceeding to levy the cess by attaching the lorries of Messrs. Murugappa Agencies and also by stopping the transport of the ore from the mining area which has now seriously affected the mining operations and has thereby caused loss. It is in these circumstances that this petition has been filed.
The Petitioner in W.P. No. 560/55 stated M that the letter of the Deputy Tohrnlckir of iSt Kalahasti dated 12-8-55 was served on them whereupon they sent a telegram to the 1st Respondent, Collector of Chittoor, for time to contact the lessee, but the Collector directed by his memorandum B-2-26859/53 dated 20-8-1955 the payment, of the amount at once, and on 27-8-1955 the Deputy Tahsildar, Kalahasti attached their lorries MSY 2271 and 2272. The Petitioner thereupon sent two telegrams on 29-8-1955 to the Respondents objecting to the illegal attachment of the Petitioner''s lorries and to the illegal levy the eess; but the Respondents not having taken any steps to raise the attachment, a registered letter acknowledgment due was sent to the 1st Respondent with a copy to the 2nd Respondent again objecting to the illegal and unauthorised levy of ,the land cess and also to the attachment of the I lorries and demanding immediate redress in the'' matter.
Since no action was taken by any of the Respondents to redress the grievance and since the 20th of September 1956 has been fixed for sale of lorries attached, this petition has been filed. The 1st Respondent, it is stated, also sent a letter B-2-26859/53 dated 31-8-1953 stating that the cess was leviable under Sections 78 and 79 of the District Board''s Act and that the Petitioner should pay up the dues and get the lorries released and thereafter should obtain relief by addressing the" government.
Learned advocate for the Petitioners contends (1) that u/s 78 of the District Boards Act, a lessee of a mine is not the occupier of the land for the purpose of levy of cess; (2) on so the cess to be levied is only on the lease fount and not on the royalty; (3) that the ,y of the land cess by the Deputy Tahsildar, e 2nd Respondent, is without jurisdiction as he not the officer empowered to levy the same and quently the order passed by him is ineffective: (4) and that no notice of the proceedings of the land cess was given to the lessee, nor (5) can the lorries of a third party, namely, the Petitioner in W. P. 560/55 be attached.
With respect to the first point it is contended that under the terms "of the lease Ex. A, the Government itself has the right to occupy the land and put it to any use it likes subject to the rights of the lessee under it and hence the lessee is not the occupier of the land or a lent holder within the meaning of Sections 78 and 79 of the District Board''s Act. In order to determine this it is necessary to examine the salient provisions of the lease deed dated 15th September 1953 under which the Petitioner obtained lease of 228-03 acres of land situate in Sivasanam-bedu village of Kalahasti" Taluk.. The recitals in the lease provide that the Governor, "grants and demises unto the lessee a the mines, beds, veins and seams of iron ore situate,'' lying and being in or under the lands which are referred to in part I of the schedule below hereinafter referred to as the said minerals together1 with the liberties,'' powers and privileges to be exercised or enjoyed in connection therewith which are mentioned in Part II of the said schedule subject to the restrictions and conditions as to the exercise and enjoyment of such liberties, powers and privileges which are mentioned in part III of the said Schedule except and reserving out of this demise-unto the Governor the liberties, powers and. privileges mentioned in Part IV of the said schedule to hold the premises hereby granted and demised unto the lessee from the 10th day of September 1952 for the term of thirty years thence next ensuing yielding and paying therefore unto the Governor the several rents and royalties mentioned in Part v. of the said schedule of the respective times therein specified ......" etc. In Part I of the schedule the description of the land is stated. Part II gives the liberties powers and privileges to be exercised, paragraph 3 of which gives to the lessee the liberty and power to erect, construct, maintain and use on or under the said lands any engines, machinery, plant, dressing floors, finance (coke-ovens) brick-kilns, me-kilns, work shops, store houses, bungalows, godowns, shed''; and other buildings and other works and convenience and to use and maintain'' any existing works and convenience of the like nature on or under the said lands. Paragraph 4 gives the liberty and power to make any tramways, railways, road and other ways in or over the said lands and to use and maintain and go and repass with or without horses, cattle,'' wagons, locomotives over the same (or any existing tramways, roads and other ways in or over the said lands). Para 7 gives power to the lessee to use sufficient part of the surface of the said lands, for the purposes of stacking, heaping or depositing thereon any produce of the mines or works carried on and any earth materials and substances dug or raised under the liberties and powers mentioned in that part. Para 9 deals with power to fell timber etc. Part III deals with restrictions and conditions as to the exercise, of the liberties. powers and privileges, namely, that the laying of roads, erection of buildings, machinery etc. should not be without the previous permission of any authority or the Government of Madras, nor use the lands for-surface occupation without giving proper notice to the Collector, nor can the lessee commence prospecting or mining operations in any reserved forest situated upon the said lands without thirty days previous notice in writing to the District Forest Officer and not without obtaining the written sanction of that Officer, nor otherwise than in accordance with such conditions as the officer may in his absolute discretion prescribe. There are several other restrictions of a similar nature with which it is riot necessary to deal. Part IV deals with liberties, powers and privileges reserved to the Governor. Part v. specifies the rents and royalties reserved by the lease, Clause (1) whereof provides for the payment of an yearly rent of Rs. 1140-2-0 when iron ore is extracted and Rs. 2280-5-0 when used for other purposes; but the said yearly rent shall be paid whether such quantity shall be sold (converted) and carried away or not. Clause (2) specifies the amount of royalty to be paid in each year on the minerals extracted from the area. Under Clause (3) the lessee is to pay to the Government in respect of the surface of the said lands which shall from time to time be occupied or used by the lessee under the terms of the lease rent at the rate of Rs. 1-8-3 per annum per acne of the area so occupied or ''used and so in proportion for any area less than acre during the period from the commencement of such occupation or use until the area shall cease to be so occupied or used.
Learned Advocate contends from these provisions in ''the lease that he is not the occupier of the land inasmuch as he is only liable to pay surface rent at the rate of Rs. 1-8-3 per acre of the land occupied by him, and consequently ho cannot be called- on to pay any cess. There is, in my view, no justification for this contention inasmuch as the entire area specified in the lease is demised to the lessee as stated in the recitals as well as the operative clause of the lease for which the lessee is to pay a rent of Rs. 1140-2-0 if he extracts iron ore and Rs. 2280-5-0 if he used its for any other purposes and this yearly rent is payable whether any quantity of minerals is sold, converted and carried away or not. Part I of the schedule clearly shows the area that has been demised under the lease, namely, ''the whole of 228-03 acres on the rents specified therein and consequently the lessee holds the property during the time limited by the lease without interruption subject to the conditions specified in the lease. It may be that restrictions are placed on the lessee from utilizing the surface for certain purposes without the permission of the Government of proper notice to the Collectors but that does not show that he is not the occupier of the land. An occupier is a person in use or enjoyment of the land, that is, a person having the actual use or occupation. There can be no _ doubt that the Petitioner had possession of the land demised even though certain restrictions were Imposed as aforesaid. The mere fact that over and above the annual rents a surface rent is charged according to the actual surface exploited does not derogate from the character of the Petitioner''s occupation. It is worthy of note that the Petitioner in one of his applications to the Deputy Tahsildar, Kalahasti dated 25th January 1954 states as follows:
As regards the surface Mat which of course is due by me on'' 228-03 acres at Rs, 1-8-3 per acre per annum". This clearly shows that he is in occupation of the entire land.: That apart as we have already seen in Clause (3) of Part I of the Schedule the Petitioner is given the liberty and power to construct, maintain and use on or under the said land any engines, machinery, plant, dress floors, furnace, brick-kilns, lime-kilns etc. If ho is not the occupier of the land this power would be inconsistent. - '' Having regard of these several provisions it can-
not be doubted that the Petitioners are the occupiers of the land, a fact which was also subsequently conceded by the Petitioner''s advocate.
It is now necessary to see whether the cess levied by the Collector is valid in law. Section 74-B of the District Board''s Act XIV of 1920 provides that In every district, a land cess being a tax on the annual rent value of the lands shall be levied in accordance with the provisions contained in that Act. The provisions referred to above in so far as they are relevant are Sections 78 and 79 which are as under:
The land cess shall be levied on the annual rent value of all occupied lands on whatever tenure held and shall consist of a tax of two annas in the rupee of the annual rent value of all such lands in the district". "79 The annual rent value shall, for the purposes of Section 78, be calculated in the following manner;-(1) In the case of land held direct from'' Government on ryotwari tenure or on lease or licence, and also in the case of lands situated in the District of Malabar on whatever tenure held, the assessment, lease amount, royalty or other sum payable to Government for the lands together with any water-rate may be payable for their irrigation, shall be taken to be the annual rent value.
Sub-sections (i), (iii) and (iv) of Section 79 deal with inam-lands, lands held on other tenures, and lands the assessment of rent of which is paid in kind, with which we are not now concerned nor are we concerned with the provisions of Sections 80 to 90 which deal with matters pertaining to those clauses. Prom these provisions it is seen that a land cess of 0-2-0 in the rupee is payable on the annual rent value of all occupied lands and the annual rent value has been shown to include various items. In so far as this petition is concerned, it deals with lands held direct from the Government and therefore . tlie lease amount, royalty or other sum payable to the Government for the lands is to be included, in the annual rent value upon which a cess of . 0-2-0 in the rupee is payable. Therefore (with respect to) the second contention that royalty cannot be included in the annual rent value of the land for the purposes of cess u/s 74-B also has no force. It is clear from the definition of annual rent value u/s 79, that lease amount, royalty or other sum payable is included. The Word "rent" is a wide term and has been held to include the amount for which the '' right to catch fish in the tank and for quarrying is given. In Sree Rajah Venkata Ramayya Appa Rao Bahadur, Zamindar Garu of Nuzvid Vs. The Secretary of State for India in Council, a Bench consisting of Sir Lionel Leach. O. J. & Happell, J., was considering the case whether ithe Appellant as the owner of a tank in which there are fish is liable1 to land cess and held him liable to land cess u/s 74B. 78 and 79 of Act XTV of 1920 on the ground that he was in beneficial occupation of the land forming the bed of the tank. Similarly if land is occupied by a person with a right to quarry on payment of royalty, such payment toeing related to the beneficial occupation of the land within the meaning of the term rent, land cess is payable under clause .(ill): of Section 74-B. In Sr. Ramalu Pantulu v. Province of Madras, 1947 2 Mad LJ 296 : AIR 1948 Mad 197 following the above Bench case, Bell J., held to the amount raised over cutting timber from the forest lands is equivalent to the annual rent vol" within the meaning of Sections 78 and 79 of larders Local Boards Act and land cess is payable ''of him. I can sea no difficulty in holding Fthat royalty is one of the items to be included in the annual rent value of the occupied land.
In so far as the third point Is concerned, z" that the Deputy Tansildar has no right, to levy the land cess, it will he necessary to examine the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act of 1&64, but before doing so it may ''on noted firstly, under Clause (1) of Part VII of the lease, ''the lessee shall not only pay rent at the time and to the manner provided in parts v. and VI. but shall also pay and discharge all taxes, rates, assessments cess or royaltiy and impositions whatsoever being in the nature of public demands which shall from time to time be charged, assessed or imposed upon or in respect of the mines or works of the lessee, or any part thereof by authority of the Central Govt. or that of the State Government. Secondly Clause (10) of Part IX �f the lease dealing with General Provisions - Power of distress specifically lays down that all amounts payable to the Central or the State Government shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the lessee under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 or any statutory modifications thereof for the time being in force. Prom these provisions it will be seen that the payment of cess by the Petitioner is soecifically contemplated by the lease and that the same can be recovered under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. Sections 5. 6 and 52 of the said Act which authorizes the recovery of demands due to the Government are as under:
Whenever revenue may be in arrear, it shall be lawful for the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, to proceed to recover the arrear, together with interest and costs of process, by the sale of the defaulter''s movable and immovable property, or by execution against the person of the defaulter in man-" ner hereinafter provided.
If the defaulter holds under a Sanad-i-F Mil-kiyat-i4stimrar or other similar instrument, the mode of recovering the arrear shall be in [accordance with the terms of such San ad. In the case of other defaulters, the Collector, or other, officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, ''may at his discretion, proceed to realise the arrear j-by the sale of either the movable or immovable property of the defaulter, or of both."
AH arrears of revenue other than land-H-revenue due to the State Government, all advances made by the State Government for cultivation or other purposes connected with the revenue), and all fees or other dues payable by any person to or on behalf of the village servants employed in revenue or police duties, and all cesses lawfully imposed Or. the land, and all sums due to the State Government, including compensation for any loss or damage sustained by them consequence of a breach of contract, may be covered in the same manner as arrears of land eyenue under the provisions of this Act, unless1 the firepower thereof shall have been or may here-loftier be otherwise specially provided for.
Learned advocate- contends that Section 91 of the Madras District Boards Act applies and a date should but fixed by the District Collector, payment u/s 88. But this pro-on, in my view, is inapplicable inasmuch as alleles with-a landholder or sub-landholder as je4,iinj Sections v3(9) and 3(21) and has no it this case. It will be seen from the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act given above that all the cess lawfully imposed u/s 52 may be recovered in the same manner as land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Ace. The question Is, firstly, whether the Deputy Tahsildar has the power ,to demand the amount and secondly, whether he can demand arrears of previous years without notice of payment being given for each of those years so as to make the cess an arrear for collection under the Revenue Recovery Act. Both u/s 5 and Section 6 any officer empowered by the Collector can take action under that Act for recovery of revenue.
The Collector or the officer so empowered shall follow the procedure laid-down in Sections 8 to 21 for the recovery of rent, The Board''s Standing Order No. 41 pant 6 states that the order to distrain (notice of demand No. 1) will generally be issued by tihe Tahsildar, and in his absence, by the Taluk Sarishtadar or Head Accountant, but the Tahsildar must b(c) empowered in this behalf by the Collector, and this as a rule should b(c) done by a general order from the Collector empowering all Tahsfldars to take action. In every case the distrainer should be furnished with a demand in writing which he must produce, and which, if the arrear, etc., be not at once paid will be his authority, without further notice, for making the distress. It would, therefore, appear that the Tahsildars or the Deputy Tahsildars, as the case may be should have been specifically empowered by the Collector at the time of making the distraint. But in this case I have not been referred to any authorization of the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar by the Collector under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. Unearned government advocate has merely produced the order B-2/26859-53 dated 8-9-1955 which is as under:
A copy of B.P. Ms. 270 press dt. 12:8-52 containing the instructions regarding the distrain of moveables is sent herewith to the Dy. Tahsildar, Kalahasti. The Dy. Tahsildar Kalahasti is himself authorised to act after observing all the formalities prescribed to the R.R. Act. Sections 8 to 21 of the R.R- Act set forth the rules in respect of the distrain of property and Sections 22 to 24 in respect of its sale. According to B.P. Ms. No. 280 press Dt. 12-8-42 the sale "will be subject to the process of revision by the Dist. Collector and the R.D.O.
The Dy. Tahsildar Kalahastii is therefore requested to take further action immediately". This order merely refers to the provisions of B.P. Ms. 270 press dated 12-8-42 containing Board'' instructions regarding the distrain of moveables. That order of the Board refers to its proceedings1 in B.P Mis No 3252 dated 11th November 1939 that the practice obtaining in some districts of Revenue Inspectors conducting sales of moveable property under the powers delegated to them by the Tahsildars by virtue of Section 6 of Act VII of 1039 and for their submitting the sale papers to the Tahsildars for coitfirmation being legal; that once the Tahsildars had delegated his powers u/s 6 of the said Act the delegate is in the same1 position as the Tahsildar and that the Tahsildar cannot legally set aside the sale; and that such conditional-delegation by- the Tahsildar reserving to himself the right to confirm the same would be illegal. It further stated that u/s 2 of Act VJ I of 1839 the Tahsildars are vested with the powers of, Commissioners to sell distrained property, of arrears Q&,;wiyenue., and that u/s 6 thereof they can delegate their powers to their subordinates. The Board therefore directed that the Tahsildars should delegate by a general order to revenue Inspectors and in individual cases to village headmen the power to conduct sales. It may be observed that Section 2 of! the Madras Rent and Revenue Sales Act VII of 1839 vests all Tahsildars with the powers of Commissioners for (the'' sale of distrained property for arrears of rent or revenue which Khali be subject to all rules and provisions to which by) any law or regulation such commissioners are subject. Section 6 empowers the Tahsildars to delegate to any public servant placed under their authority subject to (the orders of the Collector the powers vested in them by Section 2. This Act no doubt would apply, cases of sade of distrained property for arrears of revenue; but before the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar can sell the property it should have been first distrained in the maimer specified in Section 8 of Act II of 1864. The person who is empowered (to distrain such property u/s 8 is the Collector or other officer empowered by him in that behalf who shall furnish to the Person employed to distrain the property of the defaulter a demand in writing and the amount of the arrears for which the distress may be issued and the date on which the arrears fell due. The person so employed shall produce the writing which if the arrear together with the batta duo to him u/s 53 be not at once paid shall be his authority for making the distress and on the day on which the property may be distrained shall deliver a copy of such writing to the defaulter endorsing thereon a list or inventory of! the property distrained and the name of the place where it may be lodged or kept, it is further required that the writing- shall set forth that the distrained property will toe immediately brought to public sale unless the amount with interest batts and all the expenses of the distress; be previously discharged. it is only in these circumstances can the sale be effected by the Tahsildar under Act VII of 1839; tout before that either the Collector or the person authorised must issue a distraint order. Learned Government Advocate recognised the force of this contention but, was unable to show any order of the Collector Issuing order of distrain or authorising the Deputy Tahsildar himself to issue the distraint Even if the order of the Collector referred to above viz. B-2/26859/53 dated 8-9-1915 can be said to have authorised the Deputy Tahsildar to recover revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act the mfirmity is not cured because the distraint was made on 27th August 1955 while, the order authorising him was passed a fortnight later Thus at the time when the Deputy Tahsildar distrained the property of the Petitioner it would appear that be had no authority to do so. At any rate no such authority was brought to my notice.
With respect to the second question, viz., trait a demand notice should be given for each year before the amount can be said to be due as an arrear, learned Advocate for the Petitioners relies on the authority of Raja Ramchandra Ap-parao v. Secy. of State, ILR 35 Mad 197 (PB) (C); That was a case under the Madras Water-Cess Act VTI of 1865 where the Government have the right to levy at pleasure a separate oess for water, the liability to pay which is not incurred In each fash by the mere fact of taking Government water but only when Government indicates its intention to charge the cess. The cess must be imposed during the fasli. In these circumstances it was held that the Government cannot by more " act of levying water-cess to a subsequent fasli indicate an intention claim rent for previous faslii The distinottoa. between cess payable under the above Act and the land revenue which becomes payable u/s 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act according to the Kist Bandi hi each fasli year was Pointed out and because the words "may levy" at Pleasure were used in Section 1, of the water-cess Act, the cess does not become payable unless it was'' so levied; Learned Advocate for the Government seeks to draw a distinction between tins case and land cess payable u/s 78 whiich, according to him, becomes due every year: and is an arrear for the purposes of collection. According to Section 78 Land cess "shall be levied" on the annual rent value of the occupied, land and consists of tax of 0-2-O in the rupee of the annual rent value on such lands in the district. The mere fact that 0-2-0 in the rupee vis specified does not make the payment of any particular amount a tax unless the same is specified and levied. It is for this reason that Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act specifically provides that every landholder shall pay to the Collector or other officer empowered by him to receive it, the revenue due upon his land on or before the dajr on which it falls due, according to the Kistbandi or other engagement, and where no particular day is fixed, then within the time when the payment falls due according to the local usage. Under this provision whether a levy is made or not it is made obligatory on the landholder to pay the Collector or the Officer empowered to receive it, the revenue due on his land, according to the kisti bandi of the land. The words "shall be levied" in Section 78 are intended to direct the authority in power to impose or assess the tax. Rule (l) of Schedule IV of the District Boards Act says that the District Collector shall be responsible for the assessment and collection of the land cess. It was, therefore, incumbent on the District Collector to have made an assessment for each of the years for which land cess is due before ha proceeds to collect the same. Unless an assessment or levy is made, it appears to me that therei is no debt due for recovery. It will be observe firstly that it is not the District Collector thai, made the demand, but it was the Deputy Tahsit dar, and secondly no levy or assessment was made with respect to the period for which arrears were being claimed. It must not be forgotten that the annual rent value upon which the cess of 0-2-0 pen rupee is payable including the royalty and surface rent is a fluctuating amount varying acceding to the quantity of minerals quarried and the surface .utilised. Thesa have to be specified and the amount fixed for each year, before the ces can be calculated., It is but natural that the person on whom the burden is imposed should toe furnished with the details of the amount upo" which, the cess is levied. A notice or an asses ment order would therefore become necess; before it can be said that any cess is due. It is m as if any amount payable towards cess becomi automatically due.. Rule (1) of Schedule IV reft 4 ed to above makes it clear that there shall be " assessment. Under the Indian -income tax also though that Act is more elaborate where steps required to be taken before an assesee held liable to tax have been stated, the principle upon which a tax debt becomes the demand with respect to the assessment Both the Privy Council in the case of AIR 1945 62 (Privy Council) and the t Supreme Court in Chatturam Horiram Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, B and O, 1955 SCJ 571: AIR 1955 SG 619 look this '' view. In the former case it was held that although Income Tax may be popularly described as due for a certain year, it is not in law so due. It is due when demand is made under Sections 29 and 45 when it becomes a debt due to the crown. In the latter case their Lordships observed that though the tax must toe taken to have become, chargeable in the year in which the Indian Finance of 1939 come into operation by virtue of the deeming provisions on the 30 th clay of March 1939 the actual liability for payment could not '' arise until valid and proper steps are taken for quantification of the tax. Viewed from this aspect also it would appear that there was no quantification from any of the years for which cess was being demanded as arrears and consequently the order of the Deputy Tahsildar would be without jurisdiction and the, distraint'' made would therefore be invalid.
Learned Advocate for the Government incites a reference to Section 228 of the District Boards Act for the proposition that any error, detect or -want of form in the bill notice schedule form, summons notice of demand warrant of distraint etc., does not invalidate the distrait or sale nor shall any person making the same be deemed a trespasser. Sub-section (1) of Section 228 lays lawn that no assessment or demand made and no charge imposed under the authority of this Act shall be impeached or affected by reason of any �clerical error or by reason of any mistake in respect of the name, residence, place of business etc., which clearly goes to show that there must be an assessment or demand made under the authority of the Act and it is only then ithat it cannot be impeached by reason of some clerical error or defect in the name, residence, place Of business etc. The proviso to Sub-section (1) further reinforces this intention. In my view � A Section 228 does not in any way save the orders which, 1 are not In conformity with the provisions of the Act.
In Writ Petition 566/1955 the distraint made on the lorries of a third party viz., -Murugappa Agencies was Ex facie illegal because no cess was due from then and therefore no action can be taken to collect any arrears from them. It is clear from the order of the Deputy "Tahsildar dated 27-8-1955 that he has attached the lorries of Murugappa Agencies. The order is as follows:
I am hereby attaching the lorries Nos. MSY 2271 and MSY 2272 belonging to Murugappa Agencies who are doing the mining work of H.R. Rama Rao towards arrears of cesses amounting to arrears and current Rs. 826-11-6 up to June 30th 55". ft There can be no ambiguity in this order because it seeks to effect attachment of property of a third party who admittedly does not owe any cess. The order of attachment in both the writ petitions is therefore without jurisdiction and illegal and is hereby quashed.
In the result tooth the Writ petitions 665/1955 and 566/1955 are allowed with costs. . Advocate''s fee Rs, 75/- la each.