K.S. SANTHANAKRISHNA MUDALIAR AND ORS. Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE, MADRAS, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions raise common questions for decision and therefore they were heard together. The three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 830 of 1964 are the owners of the Inam Estate of Umathanadu Udayanadu situated in Pattukottai Taluk in Tanjore District. The said estate was taken over by the State of Madras on 9th July, 1952, under the provisions of the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act XXVI of 1948, which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act. The first respondent is the Board of Revenue, Madras through the Commissioner, Settlement of Estates, Madras and the and respondent is the Director of Settlements, Board of Revenue. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1964 are the owners of the Inam Estate of Kuruvikarambai in Pattukottai Taluk, Tanjore District and it was taken over by the State of Madras on and from 14th May, 1953 under the provisions of the Act. The two respondents in this writ petition are the same as the respondents in Writ Petition No. 830 of 1964.

(2.) The attack made in these writ petitions is directed against the method adopted by the respondents for fixing the compensation payable to the land holders on the taking over of the estates. For inam estates like the ones we have in these writ petitions, Sec. 31 of the Act gives the definition of a basic annual sum made up of the aggregate of the whole of the gross annual ryotwari demand as ascertained under Sec. 32 less certain deductions specified in Sec. 32. To this must be added the net annual income from lanka lands, but with this we are not concerned. Another quantity to be added is the net annual miscellaneous revenue derived from other sources in the estate. The actual compensation is to be worked out under Sec. 37 as multiples of the basic annual sums which vary according to the actual basic annual sum, the rule being, the greater the basic annual sum the lesser the multiplying factor. The most important point therefore is the method of fixing the annual ryotwari demand which forms the main ingredient of the basic annual sum. Sec. 32 of the Act says that the gross annual ryotwari demand shall be the total of the ryotwari assessments imposed in pursuance of a settlement effected under Sec. 22 of the Act on the lands occupied by any person other than the landholder on the notified date.

(3.) It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the basis for the compensation thus provided under the Act is the basic annual sum which again depends upon the annual ryotwari demand as arrived at under a settlement to be effected under the provisions of Sec. 22 of the Act. The principles for effecting the settlement are the same as the principles adopted in making the settlement in ryotwari area. But the broad question remains that a landholder who had been collecting from the ryots assessments at figures fixed by him by agreement with the ryots for a long number of years may have to forego a substantial portion of the benefits of such assessment, in cases where the ryotwari settlement makes a substantial reduction in the amount of rent payable by the ryotwari holders under the settlement and the compensation is fixed on the basis of this settlement. But it was not open to the landholder to attack a law like the present Act on the plea of violation of the constitutional protection in Article 31(2) of the Constitution, because Article 31(6) of the Constitution gave immunity to such laws from attack on such a plea. Secondly, Article 31 -B of the Constitution read with the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, gave a further immunity, because the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, was one of the Acts included in the Ninth Schedule. However, after the enactment of the Act in 1948, the Legislature, seems to have been made aware that there may be instances where in the course of the fixing of the ryotwari demand in the case of irrigated wet lands, by a settlement under Sec. 22 of the Act, account might not have been taken of the fact that at the time of the settlement, the ryots might have been getting the benefit of supply of water from irrigation sources constructed or maintained by and on behalf of the Government. In the case of water supply from such sources, before the taking over of the estate, the ryots might have been paying water cess to the Government for water so taken, separately from the assessments that they were paying to the landholder but in the settlement, the water cess might have become merged in the wet assessment. Apparently, the Legislature felt that the basic annual sum calculated on the ryotwari demand settled under Sec. 22 of the Act, would not take into account the benefit which the Government had supplied to the ryots with the help of the water from Government irrigation sources and gave to the landholder something more by way of compensation than what he would have been entitled to. To meet that situation, an. Explanation was added to Sec. 32 of the Act by an amendment of the Act, Madras Act XLIV of 1956 which was in the following terms: