VYSYARAJU SURYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this writ petition relates to the constitutionality of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. The vires of this Act is put in challenge mainly on the ground that it does not provide for compensation to the inamdar and as such is repugnant to Article 31 of the Constitution.

(2.) The short answer to the contention of Sri Ranganathan is that Section 4 (3) provides for compensation in the shape of a ryotwari patta to the inamdar for one-third of the inam. It is true that the inamdar is not paid compensation in terms of cash. But, we are not impressed with the argument of Sri Ranganatham that allotting a one-third of the inam sought to be abolished does not amount to compensation. In our opinion, the assignment of a share in the inam abolished or allotment of a definite extent of land is as good a compensation as payment in cash. In fact Section 4(3) speaks of the grant of patta to the inamdar as compensation payable to him in lieu of the extinguishment of his rights in the two-thirds share of such land. Therefore, Section 4(3) contains a provision for the payment of compensation in the form of a ryotwari patta for one-third of the inam.

(3.) In this connection, we may look at the relevant provisions of the Constitution.