Gosukonda Venkatanarasayya And Others Vs. The State Of Madras Represented By The Collector Of Nellore On 20 March, 1952

Q: Q. What are the equivalent citations for Gosukonda Venkatanarasayya and Others vs The State of Madras Represented By The Collector of Nellore ?

The equivalence citation are(1952) 2 MLJ 194 ; (1952) ILR MAD 680 ; AIR 1953 MAD 60 ; LQ/MadHC/1952/89 ;

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Gosukonda Venkatanarasayya and Others vs The State of Madras Represented By The Collector of Nellore?

HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAJAMANNAR , HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATARAMA AYYAR

Open iDraf

Gosukonda Venkatanarasayya And Others v. The State Of Madras Represented By The Collector Of Nellore

Gosukonda Venkatanarasayya And Others
v.
The State Of Madras Represented By The Collector Of Nellore

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5671 Of 1951 | 20-03-1952

(Prayer: Petition (disposed of on 20-3-1952) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the State of Madras to forbear from taking over management and from collecting the rents due to the petitioners from their tenants in the Inam known as Ramachandrapuram Agrabaram covered by Notification No. 2153 at page 80, Fart I of the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 16-8-1949 and in any manner interfering with the enjoyment by the petitioner of the above inam.)

The petitioners case is that the grant in their favour comprised less than a village and therefore it is not an estate still less an under tenure estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. If the grant is less than a village then obviously Madras Act XXVI of 1948 can have no application whatever. S. 9 of that Act provides for the determination after inquiry of the question whether any inam village is an inam estate or not. Presumably, when the contention is that the grant does not comprise a village, the proceedings under S. 9 would not be strictly open to the aggrieved party. There is no other provision in the Act under which a special Tribunal has been set up to decide a dispute of the nature which arises in this case, viz., whether a particular grant comprises less than a village. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the aggrieved party will have a right of suit as he would have a food cause of action when proceedings are taken under color of an Act which does not apply to the facts of the case. We have already held in petitions arising under Madras Act XXX of 1947 that in similar circumstances, the aggrieved party will have a right of suit. We accordingly hold that the proper and adequate remedy for the petitioners is by way of a suit. As they have such a remedy it is not necessary to invoke our jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The application is therefore dismissed.

The learned Advocate General states that the Government will not take the objection under S. 80, Civil Procedure Code in case a suit is filed.

Advocates List

For the Petitioners V. Vedantachariar, Advocate. For the Respondent The Advocate General.

Bench List

HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAJAMANNAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATARAMA AYYAR

Eq Citation

(1952) 2 MLJ 194

(1952) ILR MAD 680

AIR 1953 MAD 60

LQ/MadHC/1952/89

HeadNote

Constitution of India — Art. 32 — Proper remedy — Proper and adequate remedy for petitioners is by way of a suit — Petitioner's case is that grant in their favour comprised less than a village and therefore it is not an estate still less an under tenure estate within meaning of Madras Estates Land Act — If grant is less than a village then obviously Madras Act XXVI of 1948 can have no application whatever — S. 9 of that Act provides for determination after inquiry of question whether any inam village is an inam estate or not — Presumably, when contention is that grant does not comprise a village, proceedings under S. 9 would not be strictly open to aggrieved party — There is no other provision in Act under which a special Tribunal has been set up to decide a dispute of nature which arises in this case, viz., whether a particular grant comprises less than a village — In these circumstances, aggrieved party will have a right of suit as he would have a good cause of action when proceedings are taken under colour of an Act which does not apply to facts of case — We have already held in petitions arising under Madras Act XXX of 1947 that in similar circumstances, aggrieved party will have a right of suit — Proper and adequate remedy for petitioners is by way of a suit — As they have such a remedy it is not necessary to invoke our jurisdiction under Art. 226 of Constitution — Application is therefore dismissed — Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1948 — S. 9 — Constitution of India — Art. 32 — Proper remedy — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 80 and S. 9 CPC