KUNHAVULLA HAJEE Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in O. A. 581 of 1964 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Cannanore is the revision petitioner. The O. A. was filed by the tenant for fixation of fair rent under S.16 (1) of Act IV of 1961.

(2.) The property in respect of which the fixation of fair rent was prayed for is 40 cents of wet land in R. S.54/5 of Narikot desom, Ezhome amsom, Cannanore Taluk. The respondent is in occupation under an oral lease arrangement. The landlord contended that the petition is not maintainable, that the yield shown in the petition is unreasonably low and that the paddy field in question would fall under "tharam" one. Except filing a counter raising these contentions, nothing further was done, by the landlord to substantiate his contentions. The learned Land Tribunal has himself stated in the order that the contentions were not pursued at the final stage. Therefore, the learned Land Tribunal was compelled to fix the fair rent, on the materials available before him. The Revenue Inspector's report was before him and on its basis fair rent was fixed at 9 Palghat paras and 4 Edangazhis of paddy which is 1/4 of the gross produce, and less than the contract rate. From the decision of the Land Tribunal the landlord appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry in C. M. A. 134 of 1965. Learned Subordinate Judge went into the matter in greater detail and on a minute consideration of the Revenue Inspector's report he came to the view that the minimum yield adopted by the Revenue Inspector was not correct. The land in question is registered in the settlement records as of soil classification 7 : 2 and "tharam" 3. The lands which yield annually between 105 to 120 Palghat paras (60 nazhi para) per acre could alone be classified as tharam 3. Tharam 2 would be lands which yield annually more than 120 paras per acre. The Revenue Inspector has stated in his report that the land in question is, a superior quality disclosing no defects or drawbacks. That being the case he was clearly in error in having accepted 105 paras as the annual yield. It was in these circumstances that the learned Subordinate Judge was compelled to fix the yield at 115 Palghat paras (as per 60 nazhi para) per acre. The fair rent fixed by the Land Tribunal was accordingly raised to 10 Palghat paras, 3 edangazhies and 2 nazhies of paddy. Being dissatisfied with this fixation the landlord has come up in revision.

(3.) We hardly see any reason to interfere with the fixation made by the learned Appellate Judge. All relevant factors that are necessary to be taken into consideration in fixing the fair rent have duly been considered by the learned Subordinate Judge. The point stressed before us by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the statistics of gross produce published under S.44 of the Act have not been considered by the courts below in fixing the fair rent and on that ground he would ask for a remand of the case. R.4 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1964 has laid down the factors to be considered by the court in ascertaining the normal produce in respect of any land and they are: