AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajagopalan, J.—The lands in question measuring 11 acres and 67 cents belonged to Sri Parthasarathi swami temple represented by its
trustees. The petitioner took the lands on lease. He applied to the Conciliation Officer under S. 13 (1) of Madras Act XIV of 1932 to fix the fair
rent for these lands. Against the order of the Conciliation Officer, the owner, that is, the Devastanam, appealed to the revenue Court. The revenue
Court held that the petitioner, Sambasiva Mudaliar, was not a cultivating tenant within the meaning of S. 2 (d) of Madras Act XIV of 1952,
allowed the appeal and directed that the petitioner''s application be dismissed. It is the correctness of that order that is challenged in this application
under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the revenue Court. That the revenue Court had
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal presented to it against the order of the Conciliation Officer, which was in favour of the petitioner could not admit
of any doubt. The question is, was there anything irregular in the exercise of that jurisdiction on the part of the revenue Court. Learned Counsel for
the petitioner contended that the revenue Court acted with material irregularity and even without jurisdiction when it called for further evidence and
a report from the Conciliation Officer for deciding whether the petitioner was a cultivating tenant or not. The revenue Court observed that the
evidence placed before the Conciliation Officer was not sufficient. It therefore, directed the Conciliation Officer to make further enquiries and
record further evidence and submit with a report. It was on the consideration of that further evidence and the report of the Conciliation Officer that
the revenue Court came to the conclusion, that the petitioner was not a cultivating tenant, in that he did not himself or through any member of his
family contribute any physical labour for the cultivation of the lands in question.
No doubt R. 5 of the rules framed under the Act made applicable only some provisions of the CPC of 1908 to proceedings before a revenue
Court. R. 5 runs.
The proceedings of the revenue Court and the Conciliation Officer shall be summary and shall be governed, as far possible, by the provisions of
the CPC of 1908 having regard to (a) the issue and service of summons, (b) the examination of parties and witnesses, (c) the production of
documents.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the provisions of O. 41 for instance of the CPC had not been specifically extended to proceedings
of the revenue Court, and therefore, the revenue Court had no jurisdiction at all to take further evidence 4 of the Rules puts the revenue Court and
the Conciliation Officer into one category and gives them both power to summon witnesses and call for the production of documents. There is
nothing either in R. 4 or in R. 5 to indicate that the power to summon witnesses given to the revenue Court was confined to original proceedings
before the revenue Court, independent of appeals which also the revenue Court had jurisdiction to dispose of. Provision for appeals against orders
under S. 13 (1) made by a Conciliation Officer was made in S. 13 (2) of the Act, and there is nothing in S. 13 (2) to circumscribe in any way the
powers of the revenue Court sitting in appeal under the orders of a Conciliation Officer. I have already pointed out that R. 5 directs that the
proceedings before the revenue Court shall be summary. No separate power has been given to the revenue Court to take additional evidence in
appeals, as such but then there is no specific prohibition either. The Act and the rules framed there under left the question of procedure of the
revenue Court without any defined limit; and I am really unable to see anything in the scheme of the Act or in the rules framed there under to deny
the revenue Court the power to take additional evidence, should it consider necessary before disposing of the appeal. S. 13(2) of the Act only
refers to the decision of the revenue Court on such an appeal, but on what material such an appeal should be decided, neither S. 13 (2) nor the
rules framed under the Act defined.
One of the grounds on which learned Counsel for the petitioner attacked the order of the revenue Court was that the further enquiry ordered by
the revenue Court was without notice to the petitioner, and that therefore, such an enquiry violated the principles of natural justice. On a reference
to the record, I find that, whether or not the Conciliation Officer gave specific notice to the petitioner of the further enquiry, he did participate in the
enquiry conducted by the Conciliation Officer in the village One of the witnesses examined was the petitioner''s son and he was apparently cross-
examined by the other side. Witnesses produced by the other side were cross-examined, apparently by the petitioner. When the petitioner was
given ample opportunity, which he availed himself or to participate in the further enquiry ordered by the revenue Court and held by the Conciliation
Officer, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the order directing that further evidence be taken as violated principles of
natural justice.
Even apart from the question of jurisdiction, whether the revenue Court could call for further evidence and act upon that evidence in disposing of
the appeal, the decision in Latch manan Chettiar v. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras 51 M. L. J. 742 = 24 L.W. 778., should suffice to hold
that in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the fact that the petitioner submitted to the
jurisdiction of the revenue Court and availed himself of the opportunity of participating in the enquiry, should bar the grant of any relief under Art.
226 of the Constitution. But I have already pointed out that there is nothing in the Act or in the rules framed there under to indicate that when the
revenue Court called for further evidence and had that evidence recorded by the Conciliation Officer, the revenue Court acted without jurisdiction.
The learned Government Pleader contended that even under R. 5 (b), the power given to civil Courts for the examination of parties and witnesses
would be sufficient to clothe the revenue Court as an appellate Court with power to provide for the examination of witnesses by the trill banal
inferior to it. That contention also I accept as correct. As the revenue Court is not shown to have acted without jurisdiction or in excess of that
jurisdiction in calling for additional evidence on which it acted, this application must fail. It is dismissed with costs of respondents 1 to 3. Counsel''s
fee Rs. 100.