Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: payment and settlement systems act 2007 section 14 power to enter and inspect Sorted by: old Court: chennai Page 4 of about 63 results (0.100 seconds)

Feb 21 1910 (PC)

Santhalva Vs. Manjanna Shetty

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1911)ILR34Mad1

..... the question whether provisions of this sort are obligatory and imperative or are merely directory must be determined with reference to the words of the particular enactment' or the particular settlement in which they occur mr. sundara aiyar- has contended that the provisions are directory it seems to me in construing the two sections of the act together that they must .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1910 (PC)

The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1910)20MLJ869

..... may very well be-it is a question which we need not decide-that the government when handing over large tracts of the country to zemindars at the permanent settlement laid upon them an obligation to preserve and repair the irrigation works handed over to them at the same time, and consequently, that there may be on a zemindar ..... like the present has ever been made in india, whether against the government or against a zemindar, though opportunities for such claims have been sufficiently frequent ever since a system of irrigation works was inaugurated in the country. the courts in this presidency have held that a ryot is entitled to prevent the government from doing any act resulting ..... rarely brought before the courts, and, as we have already said we have no case in which a ryot has claimed payment for his crops lost owing to non-repair of an irrigation work. the ryot's payments of revenue being based on a division of the crop between him and the government, when the crop fails there is nothing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1910 (PC)

The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1911)ILR34Mad82

..... may very well be--it is a question which we need not decide--that the government when handing over large tracts of the country to zemindars at the permanent settlement laid upon them an obligation to preserve and repair the irrigation works handed over to them at the same time, and consequently, that there may lie on a zemindar ..... tank maintained by him. in discussing this question, their lordships observe that, the government of india have undertaken the public duty of maintaining what may be called a national system of irrigation essential to the welfare of a large portion of the population, and that this public duty has in some cases, devolved upon zemindars, who cannot do away ..... rarely brought before the courts--and as we, have-already said, we have no case in which a ryot has claimed payment for his crops lost owing to non-repair of an irrigation work. the ryot's payments of revenue being based on a division of the crop between him and the government, when the crop fails there is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1910 (PC)

Raja Ramachandra Appa Row Bahadur Garu and ors. Vs. the Sey. of State ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1911)21MLJ678

..... all charges should be ascertained and recorded within the fasli to which they relate - see board's standing order no. 12 which deals with the jamabandi or annual settlement. i have no doubt that the principle is meant to underlie rules for charging water-cess, and there are numerous indications in the rules that it does. on ..... due long before his purchase, of which he had no notice and about which there may have been previous orders (as in this case) exempting the owner from payment.27. these considerations support the inference derivable from the natural meaning of the words that the liability arises from the imposition of the cess, not by the use only ..... however, that the liability to pay water-cess was incurred in each fasli by the mere fact of taking government water, and apart from any order of the authorities demanding payment for the water. a perusal of the act and rules shows that this contention is untenable. under section 1 the government may 'at pleasure' levy water-cess. equally .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 1910 (PC)

Gorakala Kanakayya Vs. Janardhana Padbi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1911)21MLJ31

..... of the provisions of chapter xi of the act. under section 170 the preliminary record prepared under section 169 has to be submitted to the confirming authority for sanction. the settlement of the rents comes into force upon such confirmation. then tinder section 171 an appeal lies to a superior revenue authority or other special officer determined by rule or empowered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1910 (PC)

Sreemant Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada Naidu Bahadur Zamindar G ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1911)21MLJ156

..... contract entered into in fasli 1279 when the change was made from the asara to the visabadi system. the district judge is wrong in supposing that the plaintiff's case was that the question of the rate for such cultivation was reserved for future settlement. the mistake probably arose from the fact that this case was heard along with other cases where ..... of krishna water. this question was not expressly put in issue. and we do not understand the district judge to have found upon it. the advocate-general relies upon long payment of dry rates. but mr. sunday aiyar draws our attention to the muchilika, exhibit e 17 in second appeal no. 1127 of 1908 and to the ..... payment of higher rates for one fasli in s.a. 1126 of 1908 as negativing the contract. it is for the district judge to find upon the evidence on record, 'whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1911 (PC)

Kothilinga Setu Royar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Sahasranama Iyer and ors ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1911)21MLJ662

..... milkiyat-i-istimrar, all other zemindars shrotriemdars, jagirdars, inamdars, and all persons forming the land-revenue under government; all holders of land under raiyatwar settlements, or in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct to government, 'by the light thrown upon it by the regulations and the other sections of the act, i have little ..... , no other person is to be treated as a 'landholder' under the act, the learned judges proceeded to decide that when the revenue payable is not under a settlement, any person who may be deemed to be the holder of the land must be comprised in the term 'landholder' and therefore, a tenant in occupation is a ..... case cited. there is no difference between water cess and ordinary revenue under act ii of 1864. both regulation xxv of 1802 and regulation xxvi of 1802 contemplate settlement of land revenue only with the proprietors of land and require transfers of land from one proprietor to another to be registered. if the registry is not transferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1911 (PC)

Kottilinga Settu Royer, Zamindar of Urkad Vs. Sahaseanama Iyer and ors ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1911)ILR34Mad520

..... i-istimrar, all other zamindars, shrotriamdars, jagirdars, inamdars, and all persons farming the land revenue under government; all holders, of land under ryotwar settlements, or in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct to government,' by the light thrown upon it by the regulations and the other sections of the act, i have little doubt that ..... no other person is to be treated as 'a landholder' under the act, the learned judges proceeded to decide that when the revenue payable is not under a settlement, any person who may be deemed to be the holder of the land must be comprised in the term 'landholder' and therefore a tenant in occupation is a ' ..... case cited. there is no difference between water-cess and ordinary revenue under act ii of 1864. both regulation xxv of 1802 and regulation xxvi of 1802 contemplate settlement of land revenue only with the proprietors of land and require transfers of land from one proprietor to another to be registered. if the registry is not transferred, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1911 (PC)

Kotttlinga Settu Royer Avergal, Zemindar of Urkad and anr. Vs. Sahasra ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 9Ind.Cas.643a

..... -i-stimrar, all other zemindars, jhrortriamdars, sagirdars, inamdars, and all persons farming the land revenue under government; all holders of land under raiyatwari settlements, or in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct to government,' by the light thrown upon it by the regulations and the other sections of the act, i have little doubt ..... , no other person is to be treated as a 'landholder' under the act, the learned judges proceeded to decided that when the revenue- payable is not under a settlement, any person who may be deems to be the holder of the land must be comprised in the term 'landholder' and, therefore, a tenant in occupation is a ..... case cited. there is no difference between water cess and ordinary revenue under act ii of 1864. both regulation xxv of 1802 and regulation xxvi of 1802 contemplate settlement of land revenue only with the proprietors of land and require transfers of land from one proprietor to another to be registered. if the registry is not transferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1911 (PC)

Srimatu Rajah Y. Mallikarjuna Prasada Naidu Bahadur Vs. V. Subbayya an ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1913)ILR36Mad4

..... i.l.r. (1890) mad., 249 , the judge has expressed his opinion that this stipulation was penal and unreasonable. it was the plaintiff's case that the question of the settlement of wet rates, if cultivation of wet crops was effected by means of kistna water, was reserved until such cultivation actually began. the judge has held that the plaintiff has ..... r., (1905) mad., 444, suppa pillai v. nagayasami thumbichi naicker i.l.r., (1908) mad., 19, and paramasawmi v. pusala thevan : (1910)20mlj142 , and if any rent under the sharing system is in effect higher than the money rent now being paid by the defendant it would, in our opinion, be clearly an enhancement of rent under section 11 of the ..... conditions which give him a right to apply exists in this case; the improvement was not made by the landlord, and he has not been required to make any additional payment to government; there is no such right in him to apply which he has given up. there was thus no obligation on the part of the tenant to pay .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //