SARIKI RAMINALDU Vs. ARLSETTI SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal -against -the order of -our learned brother Satyanarayana Raju, J., dismissing the Writ Petition -filed by the Appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Manager, Vizianagaram Estate: dated 31sC July o (2) The facts are not in dispute and may he briefly stated. The temples of Ramalingeswara Bwami and Sri Kanyakaparameswari at Gajapathinagaram owned an extent of about 70 acres m Puritipenta village in the Vizianagaram taluk. The Appellants are ryots in possession of the said land. The village was notified under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). At the time the Act came into force, the Appellants were paying a rent of Rs. 1,200 for the land. But, under the provisions of the Act, the Special Estate Deputy Tahsildar reduced the rent to Rs. 480.

(2.) MR . Deekshitulu, learned Counsel for the Appellants, argues that the rent reducible under the Act is the rent lawfully payable under the Madras Estates Land Act at the time when the Act came into force and, therefore, the rent payable in respect of the Appellants' land was the rent payable under Section 28 of the Estates Land Act Ignoring the illegal enhancement made in the year 1944. Mr. Venkatesam, learned Counsel, argues that the purpose of the Act is to give temporary relief to the ryots who were paying high rents till final settlement of rent was made by reducing the rents approximately to the level of the assessment levied on lands in ryotwari areas and therefore the rents that were being paid actually at the, time the Act came into force were the basis for relief under the Act.

(3.) IT will be seen from the aforesaid provisions that, under the Estates Land Act, the rent payable is the amount lawfully payable to the landlord and that, in the case of an estate within the meaning of Clause (d) of Sub -Section 2 of Section 3 of the Estates Land Act, the rent lawfully payable on the 1st day of November, 1933 is presumed to be the fair and equitable rent till the contrary la established. It is, therefore, contended that, for the purpose of the Act the rent payable by the Appellants in 1933 ignoring the enhancement made in 1944, should afford a basis for reduction.