JOSEPH Vs. KORA JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question to be considered is whether the respondents are entitled to claim arrears of rent for the land in respect of which order of resumption has been cancelled on account of the failure to deposit the solatium amount. O. A. 55 of 1970 was filed by the respondents for resumption of one-half of the holding. THE resumption application was allowed. Respondents filed appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land reforms) challenging the quantum of solatium amount. THE Appeal was dismissed. Respondents filed CRP. 1177 of 1976. Though the civil revision petition was dismissed, time for depositing the solatium amount was extended till 16-12-1976. Despite the extension the solatium amount was not deposited.

(2.) REVISION petitioner contends that as the solatium amount was not deposited the order allowing resumption stood cancelled and consequently the respondents cannot claim arrears of rent for any period after 1-1-1970. S. 72 (1) provides that all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure under S. 13 and in respect of which certificates of purchase under S. 59 (2) have not been issued, shall, subject to the provisions of the section vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon on the date of notification. The date of notification was on 1-1-1970. The proviso to S. 72 (1) postulates that S. 72 (1)shall not apply to a holding or part of a holding in respect of which an application for resumption is pending on such date before any court or tribunal or in appeal or revision. Thus it can be seen that S. 72 (I) will not have any application in respect of which application for resumption has been filed and is pending before any court or tribunal or in appeal or revision. S. 72q enables a landowner or intermediary to recover arreas of rent due to him before the date of vesting. By virtue of S. 72q arrears of rent can be recovered as if such vesting had not taken place. This is subject to the provisions of S. 73 which provides for the discharge pf arrears of rent. S. 72qq specifically provides that a cultivating tenant is not liable to pay rent if resumption application has been rejected. The section provides that incase where an application for resumption has been rejected, the cultivating tenant is not liable to pay any rent for the holding with effect from the date of notification under S. 72 (1) of the Act. A reading of S. 72qq would show that in a case where a resumption application has been rejected the landowner cannot claim arrears of rent after 1-1-1970. S. 22 (8) states that where a landlord fails to deposit the amounts in accordance with the direction of the Land Tribunal the order of resumption shall be treated as cancelled and the landlord shall have no further right for resumption. As the order of resumption stood cancelled under S. 22 (8) as the solatium amount was not deposited, the tenant cannot be made liable for the arrears of rent for the holding after the date of notification under S. 72 (1) of the act, viz. 1-1-1970. Merely because the cancellation occurred long after 1-1-1970 the landowner cannot claim rent upto that period in contravention of s. 72qq.