H R S MURTHY H R S MURTHY Vs. COLLECTOR OF CHITTOOR:COLLECTOR OF CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two civil appeals and the petition under Art, 32 of the Constitution which have been heard together raise a common point regarding the validity of notices of demand for the payment of land cess under the Madras District Boards Act (Madras Act XIV of 1920) which for shortness we shall call the Act, and the legality of the procedure for the recovery of the amount of the said cess, The impugned notices made a demand also for education cess but as this cess is merely a proportion of the land cess, and as the validity of that demand stands or falls with that of the land cess, it is sufficient if we refer to and consider the challenge to the demand of land cess alone, as that will determine the validity of the entire sum demanded.

(2.) The appellant's father obtained a mining lease from the Government of Madras dated September 15, 1953 under which he was permitted to work and win iron ore in a tract of lands in a village in Chittoor district. The terms upon which the lessee was to work the mines are not very relevant but what is material is that under this instrument the lessee bound himself to pay a dead rent of Rs. 1140/ 2 per year if he used the leased land for the extraction of iron ore and a higher amount if it used for other purposes. Besides, he also bound himself to pay a royalty of 8 annas per ton of iron ore if the ore were used for extraction of iron and if the iron ore was used for any other purpose such as for sale in specie, at Re. 1 / - per ton. In addition, the lease also stipulated for the payment of surface rent at Rs. 1 / 8 / 3 per acre per annum in respect of the surface area occupied or used. The lessee worked the mines, extracted ore and marketed it.

(3.) To raise finances for carrying on the local administration in the District Boards, several taxes are leviable. Among them S. 78 of the Act imposes a land cess on lands in the district in these terms: