MAHADEVA IYER Vs. JANAKI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises in these two writ petitions which have been filed to quash the orders of two Land Tribunals passed under S. 72f of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is what is the compensation that a Kanam tenant is entitled to get for his right, title and interest in a property which vests in the government under S. 72f of the Act.

(2.) THE compensation payable to every land owner and intermediary whose right, title and interest in respect of a holding have vested in the Government under S. 72 of the Act is provided in S. 72a. S. 72b confers the right on the cultivating tenant of such a holding to purchase the right, title and interest of the landowner and intermediaries, if any, in the said holding, and provides for making an application for that purpose to the land Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the holding is situate. S. 72d provides for determination of the price payable by the cultivating tenant for such purchase. S. 72f deals with the procedure for determination of the compensation payable under S. 72a by the Government to the landowner and intermediaries, if any, and the purchase price payable under S. 72d by the cultivating tenant to the Government. Subject to certain limitations regarding the quantum of total compensation when it exceeds Rs 20,000/- which is specifically provided in sub-s. (3) of S. 72a, the amount of compensation payable by the Government to the landowner and intermediaries, if any, is the same as the purchase price payable by the cultivating tenant to the Government. li is enough to read sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 72a, for the purpose of getting at the controversy in these matters. 72a. Compensation to landlords for vesting of their rights in Government. (I) Every landowner and intermediary whose right, title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government under S. 72 shall be entitled to compensation as provided in sub-ssctions- (2), (3) and (4), (2) THE compensation payable to the landowner and intermediaries under sub-s. (1) shall be the aggregate of (a) sixteen times the fair rent of the holding or part thereof, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the government; (b) the value of structures, wells and embankments of a permanent nature belonging to the landowner and the intermediaries, if any; and (c) one-half of the value of timber trees belonging to the landowner and the intermediaries, if any: Provided that where the aggregate of the value of structures, wells and embankments and one-half of the value of the timber trees referred to in clauses (b) and (c) exceeds sixteen times the fair rent in respect of the holding or part thereof, as the case may be, such aggregate value shall, for the purpose of calculating the compensation under this subsection, be limited to sixteen times such fair rent. Explanation J. For the purposes of this section and s. 72d, "fair rent" means the fair rent under this Act as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. Explanation II. For the purposes of this section, where the rant is payable in kind the money value of the rent shall be commuted at the average of the prices of the commodity for the six years immediately preceding the year in which the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries have vested is the Government, and in calculating, the average of the prices, the prices, if any, published under S. 43 may also be taken into account. "

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners the contract rent is the rent fixed in the contract as payable by the cultivating tenant to the kanam tenant. In support of that contention, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the kanam tenant is liable to pay the michavaram or jenmikaram, irrespective of the question whether he has received the rent from the cultivating tenant or not, that it is not a liability to be paid or discharged out of the rent received, and that the jenmi or bis right, if any, in respect of the property does not come into the picture in determining what is the rent under the contract between the kanam tenant and the cultivating tenant. The term contract rent is a common expression; and its meaning is clear and well-known. It means the rent fixed under the contract of tenancy payable by the tenant to the landlord. There is no scope for any interpretation when the meaning of a term or a provision contained in a statute is clear. The court must give effect to the plain meaning. This is an elementary rule of interpretation of statutes. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in their contention.