Judgment : In view of the fact that these writ petitions involve common questions, they are taken up together for disposal. Dharmapuram Adheenam by its Adheenakarthar and Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam by its Hereditary Trustee/ Adheenakarthar are respectively the petitioners in these writ petitions. The registered holdings of these two Devasthanams, it is said, had been leased out to tenants. In view of the enactment of various socio-ameliorating legislations, protecting the cultivating tenants in Tamilnadu, the petitioners were unable to realise the income due from the tenants, but nonetheless the burden of paying land revenue never ceased and they were required to pay live same at full rate, which, they say, is not justifiable in such circumstances. They would further contend that for the levy and collection of land revenue, there is no statutory provisions and in the absence of the same, the levy and collection of land revenue is not permissible on the face of Art.265 of the Constitution of India, which prescribes, “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” They would also contend that even otherwise, they would be entitled to either exemption or abatement of land revenue, depending upon the contingency of their inability to collect the entirety of the land revenue or portion thereof, in view of the various ameliorative legisations brought in by the Government, protecting cultivating tenants, inasmuch as the assessment to land revenue represents the share of the Government from income derived from cuiltivation of those lands. It is on this premise, actions had been resorted to by the petitioners under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of mandamus, directing the respondents to forbear from collecting land revenue or kist due in respect of the lands owned by the petitioners From Fasli 1393 so long as the collection of current rent and arrears of rent and eviction proceedings against the tenants are prevented by legislative action. 2. It is not as if the questions as posed in these writ petitions did not crop up for consideration anterior in point of time and the plain fact is that such questions came to be canvassed before this Court on occasions more than one. In a recent decision of this Court in Dharmapuram Adheenam v. State of Tamil Nadu by its Secretary, Revenue Department, W.P.No.3789 of 1982 dated 11. In a recent decision of this Court in Dharmapuram Adheenam v. State of Tamil Nadu by its Secretary, Revenue Department, W.P.No.3789 of 1982 dated 11. 1989, S.Ramalingam, J., considered these questions elaborately after noticing the relevant contentions. The rival contentions urged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order, if penned down here, will have a penetrating effect in revealing the discussion entered thereunder, culminating in a finding on those questions, and they are as under: “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Art.265 of the Constitution of India, no tax can be levied without the authority of law. For levying land revenue, there is no law made by the State either after the advent of the Constitution of India or before. Therefore, levy and collection of land revenue is wholly without jurisdiction. He further contends that since there is no law authorising the levy of land revenue, the provisions of Art.372 of the Constitution of India would not be any avail to the respondents because the said Art.372 saves only existing laws. The law as used in Art.372 of the Constitution only is the law enacted by the competent legislature of Parliament. Thirdly, it is contended that the Revenue Recovery Act is not a law levying or authorising the levy of land revenue. On the contrary, the said enactment merely provides for the manner of collection of land revenue, which is due. Therefore, it is submitted that the levy of land revenue is not protected by the Revenue Recovery Act. Lastly, it is contended that according to the common law/customary law, the land revenue/ kist is in the nature of a King’s share or Rajabhogam. The King can have his share only out of the income realised by the ryotwari pattadar. If the pattadar is deprived of collecting the lease or rent from the tiller by reason of certain social ameliorative legislations, the share of the King (Rajabhogam) should also be proportionately reduced. Since the said benefit has not been conferred on the petitioner, but instead, full amount of land revenue is sought to be collected from the petitioner, the mandamus as prayed for should be issued. 4.. Since the said benefit has not been conferred on the petitioner, but instead, full amount of land revenue is sought to be collected from the petitioner, the mandamus as prayed for should be issued. 4.. Learned Additional Government Pleader opposes the contentions of the petitioner and submits that the levy of land revenue is a well accepted prerogative of the crown and has received judicial recognition in several judgments and being part of common law/ customary law of the land, is saved by Art.372 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the petitioner’s contention that the land revenue is in the form of King’s share (Rajabhogam) is not tenable under the constitutional set up, where the powers of the State have to be traced within the ambit of the constitutional provisions and not on vague theory of King’s share.” 3. Learned Judge, after making a surveyof various decisions such as Madathaput Ramayya v. Secretary of State, I.L.R. 27 Mad. 386, Bell v. Municipal Commissioner for the City of Madras. s.L.R. 25 Mad. 457. K.Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 723. placed implicit reliance on a Division Bench decision of his Court in Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1958) 2 M.L.J. 117 , which held the levy of land revenue/kist is a prerogative of the Crown according to the ancient and common law of India which was a law within the meaning of Art.372 of the Constitution of India, and that levy of land revenue is protected by Art.372 of the Constitution and there is no violation of Art.265. Learned Judge concluded that the ratio of Gopalan’s case, (1958)2 M.L.J. 117 , directly applies to the first contention raised by the petitioner before him that the levy of land revenue is not without authority of law and violative of Arts.265 and 372 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned Judge concluded that the ratio of Gopalan’s case, (1958)2 M.L.J. 117 , directly applies to the first contention raised by the petitioner before him that the levy of land revenue is not without authority of law and violative of Arts.265 and 372 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned Judge, with regard to the question of exemption or abatement of land revenue, observed thus in paragraph 6: “Last submission of the petitioner that the collection of land revenue being in the nature of a King’s share of the produce, when laws had been enacted by the State restricting the collection of lease/rent from the tillers by the ryotwari pattadar, the Crown should give an abatement to the collection of land revenue, cannot also be sustained for the reason that whatever may be the ancient origin of collection of land revenue, the law has been settled that the said collection is a prerogative of the Crown. That being so, it cannot be contended that when there is a restriction placed on the land holder to collect the full lease/rent from the tenant, there should be a proportionate abatement of the kist.” 5. Answering the questions as above, learned Judge dismissed the writ petition as having no merits The matter was of course not left there and further agitated by way of an appeal and Nainar Sunda-ram, J., (as he then was) and Thanikkachalam, J., in W.A.No.140 of 1991 dated 12. 1991,expressed thus as respects the constitutional vires of levy and collection of land revenue: “The main contention raised with reference to the levy of land revenue/kist has been rightly repelled by the learned Single Judge and in doing so, he relied on the pronouncement of a Bench of this Court in Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1958)2 M.L.J. 117 . It has been countenanced by the Bench that the levy of land revenue/kist is a prerogative of the Crown according to the ancient common law of the land prior to the advent of the Constitution of India; and hence Art.265 thereof would include not only the statutory law but also common law. It has been countenanced by the Bench that the levy of land revenue/kist is a prerogative of the Crown according to the ancient common law of the land prior to the advent of the Constitution of India; and hence Art.265 thereof would include not only the statutory law but also common law. We have not been, persuaded to differ from the view of the Bench of this Court in the earlier pronouncement.” As respects the question of exemption or abatement, learned Judges observed as follows: “The other submission with reference to abatement was not straight-away accepted by the learned single Judge. As a principle, we do not think that we ourselves should direct abatement. However, the State taking note of the predicament in which the appellant is placed on account of various laws restraining the collection of the lease/rent from the tillers of the soil, could consider the plea of the appellant for abatement or for total exemption. Mr.R.Krsnnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that his client is prepared to make a representation to the State for abatement or for total exemption, but then until the representation is disposed of, coercive steps or recovery need not be resorted to and appropriate directions in this behalf may be given by this Court. On the facts of this case, we find reason behind this plea. We direct the appellant to make a representation to the State seeking for total exemption or abatement, urging all the factors in support thereof within a period of four weeks from today, and if so done, the State/first respondent herein, shall consider the same and dispose it of with expedition. We aresure that the State will give due consideration to the factors pleaded by the appellant. Until the representation is disposed of, the State may not resort to any coercive steps for recovery of the land revenue for the faslis concerned.” Ultimately, the writ appeal was dismissed subject to the above directions. 6. On the facts of the Division Bench decision referred to above, it goes without saying that there is no substance or merit as respects the question that the levy and collection of tax is not permissible as there being no statutory law. As regards the other question of exemption or abatement of land revenue, I have no other option except to tread on the path chosen by the Division Bench. As regards the other question of exemption or abatement of land revenue, I have no other option except to tread on the path chosen by the Division Bench. In that view, I propose to dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions: The petitioner in each petition shall make a representation to the State/first respondent, seeking for total exemption or abatement urging all factors in support thereof, within a period of four weeks from today, and if so done, the State/first respondent shall consider the same and dispose it of with expedition. I trust and hope that the State will give due consideration to the representations made. Until the representations are disposed of, the State may not resort to any coercive steps for recovery of land revenue for Faslis commencing from 1393. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.