1. Only two points are argued for the appellant: (1) whether Section 42 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act applies to cases in which the area of a holding has been determined under the Survey and Boundaries Act, (2) whether the limitation imposed by Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act in point of time applies to proceedings for the recovery of contribution of survey charges apportioned under Section 20 of the Survey and Boundaries Act.
2. On both points the decision of the District Judge appears to be correct. Appellant’s vakil relies on Section 12 (3) of the Survey and Boundaries Act as declaring the finality of the determination of actual area of holding by the Survey Department: but this does not preclude the possibility of a ” dispute as to the amount of rent which the landlord is entitled to demand after the survey; and Section 42 (2) seems to require that in all cases of dispute an application to the Collector shall be necessary.
3. As regards the 2nd point Section 20 (3) makes the apportioned amount of survey charges recoverable as if it were an arrear of rent. The procedure to be followed, if advantage is sought to be taken of this provision is laid down in Section 111, 112 et seq of the Madras Estates Land Act and the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 112, which says, ” such notice shall be sent to the Collector within one year from the end of the Revenue year for which the arrear is due” applies equally with the rest of the section.
4. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.