B E SESHACHARYULU Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the facts and the circumstances of the case, I think it desirable that this case is decided by a Division Bench. However, I indicate my view which is to the effect that the component of annual miscellaneous revenue mentioned by the Estate Abolition Act (which is not capable of being derived in the circumstances mentioned in this case) is only a fraction and part of the total compensation payable under that head. The statute provides for the multiplication of the average annual miscellaneous revenue; thereby, the statute intends payment of compensation to the land-holder calculated by multiplying the average miscellaneous revenue. Failure to obtain the average miscellaneous revenue should not be construed in my opinion as disentitling the estate-holder from getting compensation under the statute. The fact of the matter is that the statute is based on payment of compensation in the calculation of which average miscellaneous revenue is only a component. The judgment of the learned single Judge in Bandepalli Veera raghavayya and others vs. State of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh) by the Collector of Nellore District relied upon by the petitioner is not exactly on this point. There the Government has failed to collect the miscellaneous revenue; whereas here, no miscellaneous revenue could be collected at all because of the drought during those three crucial fasli years. I am of the opinion that in order to give effect to the statutory scheme of abolition of Estates on the payment of compensation, it would be necessary for State to pay compensation, however, arrived. In the circumstances, this case is better decided by a Division Bench. Post this matter before a Division Bench, as early as possible, because the case is a 1981 matter. Pursuant to the above order of reference this petition came on for hearing before the Division Bench and the Court delivered the following.

(2.) This is a petition for issuance of writ to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 16-10-1979 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The petitioners are the land-holders of Buddepalli inam estate which was taken over on 3-7-1964. In respect of Ryoti lands, the Assistant Settlement Officer granted pattas to the ryots for an extent of Ac. 343.01 cents and ryotwari pattas were granted under Section 15(1) of the Estates Abolition Act fcr 80 acres. On appeal at the instance of the petitioners, the Estates Abolition Tribunal held that the land-holders are entitled to Melvaram right only the ryots are entitled to Kudivaram rights and the grant of pattas is justified. Thereafter the Director of Settlements, the 1st respondent herein determined the total compensation as 'nil' on the basis - that the basis annual sum is 'nil'. On appeal the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, the 2nd respondent herein confirmed the order on the ground that the Government did not derive any income under miscellaneous revenue during the three faslies subsequent to the fasli in which the estates was taken over. It is, however, stated that if the authorities were diligent, they could have derived some amounts during the said faslis.