KRISHNAN MADHAVAN Vs. MAYADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, arising respectively out of L. A. case Nos. 330 and 334 of 1967 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, raise a common question of law relating to the apportionment between the appellant tenant on the one hand, and the respondent land owner on the other, of the amount of compensation awarded for the land compulsorily acquired from them under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961; and the key to the answer would lie in the proper understanding of the scope and legislative intent of S.34, 35 and 112 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, (Act 1 of 1964,) for short the Act.

(2.) The facts relevant for the decision are not now in dispute. The appellant, being the pakuthivaramdar in respect of the properties acquired, had, in the year 1961, applied for the fixation of fair rent for his holdings under the provisions of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act IV of 1961); and fair rent for the holdings was fixed by the Land Tribunal as per Ext. P1 orders dated 28-11-1968. The compulsory acquisition was during the pendency of the fair rent proceedings, the possession of the acquired land having been taken by the State on 23-2-1966. The question posed before the court below, on a reference under S.32 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, was, whether, for the purpose of determining 'the proportion of the profit derivable from the land' acquired, as a basis for the apportionment of the compensation awarded, the contract rent by the application of S.35 of the Act (as it stood then, before being amended by S.32(1) of Act 35 of 1969) or the fair tent fixed under Ext. P1 order, by the application of S.34 of the Act, was relevant. The learned subordinate Judge, accepting the contention of the respondent land-owner, has directed the apportionment to be made treating the contract rent to be the income derivable by the respondent from the land acquired. It is the correctness of this decision that is under challenge in these appeals.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a manifest error in the approach made by the learned Subordinate Judge inasmuch as he has ignored the significance of the provision in S.34 of the Act that the order determining the fair rent shall take effect from the beginning of the agricultural year in which the application for determination of fair rent was filed. To facilitate easy reference S.34 of the Act is quoted below: