HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The facts found are that a general village rent was paid up to fasli 1280, in which year a system of individual holdings with rates per acre was introduced. For four years there were quarrels and disturbances about the rates of rent which the Zamindar wished to levy, but for faslis 1285--1291 the rates paid have been Rs. 2-9-0 for dry and Rs. 8-8-0 for wet. The tenants object to the wet rate, and claim that they are only liable to pay the dry rate Rs. 2-9-0 per acre plus Rs. 4 Government tax upon dry land converted into wet by the water of the Kistna canal, thus distinguishing this wet land from the old mamul wet for which nanjah rates have to be paid to the Zamindar;
(2.) After careful consideration I find myself unable to distinguish this case from Narasimha v. Ramasami, I.L.R. 14 Mad. 44.
(3.) The six years (fasli 1285--1291) during which these rates have been paid are not sufficient to establish an implied contract. No extra peishcush is levied from the Zamindar, nor is it found that he has contributed to the cost of the improvements. In either case he has not obtained the sanction of the Collector to the enhancement of rent and that the charge of such consolidated assessment is an enhanced rate there is no doubt. The argument that the Zamindar is only charging the mamul wet rates is of no force, since it is clear that no extra rate is demanded from him and Section 4, Madras Act VII of 1865, exempts him from extra payment for lands to which he is entitled to irrigation free of separate charge.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.