NERIADRI RAO Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Justice Gopala" krishnan Nair, dismissing a petition for the issuance of a writ of Mandamu to compel the Board of Revenue to revise its orders fixing the amount of arrears of rent payable to the petitioners and also computing the amount of compensation due to them under section 20 of the Madras Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act).

(2.) The material facts may be briefly narrated. The lands in regard to which compensation was claimed by the appellants, originally formed part of the Zamindari of Pithapuram. On the 22nd. June, 1887, the Maharajah of Pithapuram granted a lease of lands, which the appellants claim to be of an extent of 2,66965 cents, to his third wife for a period of 99 years reserving only a rent of four annas per acre. The lessee executed a will on the 8th. of Nov. 1914 bequeathing her lease-hold rights to the 1st. appellant. The Pithapuram Estate was abolished with effect from 7-9-1949 under the provision of the Abolition Act. While taking over the estate of the Zamindar, the Government took over also the land which belonged to the 1st. Appellant in his leasehold right. We are not concerned in the present inquiry as to what took place till the date when the Board of Revenue called upon the appellant to show cause why the lease should not be terminated under Sec. 23 (1) of the Estates Abolition Act. On the appellant's statement that he had no objection to the course indicated in the Boards' notice, the Board directed the lease-hold rights to be terminated and passed an order directing the payment of a sum of Rs. 24,949-20 nP. to the appellant as the net collections from these lands, less the cist and 10% as collection charges, In that order, it was inter alia recited that the land demised by the Maharajah of Pithapuram in 1887 to his third wife was only Ac. 2277-82 cents. The appellant objected in writing to this statement of the Board of Revenue. Shortly thereafter, the Board of Revenue passed an order computing' the compensation on the basis of the extent of the land being Ac, 2,025-91 cents. The Board of Revenue further directed the deduction of certain amounts to which exception was taken by the appellant. As these objections did not prevail with the Board of Revenue, the appellants sought the assistance of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) One of the contentions urged in support of the petition was that the extent of the land involved in the litigation was Ac. 2659-65 cents. The learned Judge, having regard to the complicated nature of this issue, directed the appellants to work out their rights in respect of these lands in the ordinary civil courts. Another matter in regard to which he observed that the rights should be agitated in a Civil Court was the claim for interest on the collections made by the Government, but not paid over to the appellants immediately, in the view that the Board, of Revenue could not be said to have acted wrongly in refusing to award interest since there was np provision for payment of interest in regard to these collections.