AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The decrees of the lower Courts are altogether unsupportable. The land is admittedly classed as wet land, and no cess was levied from the
plaintiffs under Act VII of 1865. The suit is, therefore, one for refund of land revenue on the ground that as the Government failed to supply water
for raising wet crops, it was not entitled to levy the revenue assessed on the land. It is entirely a matter for Government to decide what amount of
revenue should be levied on any land and Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try any question relating to it. (Section 58 of the Madras Revenue
Recovery Act, II of 1864). The lower Courts are quite wrong in supposing that the liability to pay land revenue rests on contract or some relation
resembling contract. Land revenue is a tax imposed on lands by virtue of the prerogative of the State. The plaintiffs were bound to pay it whether
water was available or not for wet cultivation. If they regarded the tax as excessive, their proper and only remedy was to appeal to Government
for the redaction of the tax. The decrees of the lower Courts are reversed and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout.