SRI RAJAH BOMMADEVARA VENKATA NARASIMHA NAIDU BAHADUR ZEMINDAR GARU Vs. ATMURI SUBBARAYADU AND MNARASIMHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals from awards made by the Acting District Judge of Kistna in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. They are both appeals by the Zamindar. The awards give the ryots the whole value of the trees that stood upon the land which was compulsorily acquired and apportion the total compensation awarded in respect of the land compulsorily acquired in the ratio of three-fifths to the ryots and two-fifths to the Zamindar.

(2.) I will deal first with that part of Appeal No. 38 which has reference to the value of the trees. With regard to this the District Judge says " I uphold the Collector s award." Then he points out that the dispute centres round the value of the trees and he says and that the Zamindar has no evidence to adduce in this case. That is practically the whole of his award with reference to this question as to whether the whole value of the trees should go to the Zamindar as the Zamindar claimed or the whole value should go to the ryots as the ryots claimed. Now the award which the District judge says he upholds so far as we can follow the course of th6 proceedings and it has been by no means easy and as so seems to be the revised award which is printed on page 9 of the pleadings paper in A. 38. It is not clear under what provision of law the Deputy Collector was called upon by the District Judge to make a revised award after the reference to the judge under Section 30 had been made. However a revised award was made. Mr. Prakasam has contended that inasmuch as no evidence has been adduced before the District Court by the party on whose behalf the order of reference was made the District Court had no alternative but to decline to interfere with the award made by the Deputy Collector. No doubt proceedings under Part III of the Act are not by way of appeal and what is contemplated is a new inquiry by the District Judge. But I am not prepared to go so far as to say that because a party on whose behalf the order of reference is made adduces no evidence before the Court, he is precluded from asking the Court for a modification of the award as made by the Collector, although of course the fact that he is not in a position to adduce evidence before the judge is a matter to be taken into consideration in determining whether the award of the Collector should be disturbed.

(3.) In the award of the Collector with reference to the question of trees the Collector refers to a provision in the Muchilika that as the " cist on palmyras and other trees is not included in this cist I (meaning the ryot) shall not object to any arrangement you (meaning the Zamindar) may make regarding them." The Deputy Collector points out that this is capable of being interpreted to mean either that the ryot could take the trees paying a separate cist therefor or that the Zamindar is the sole master. Apparently it means that if the Zamindar insists upon a separate cist for the trees the ryot will not object to paying it. There is no evidence that the Zamindar ever did insist upon cist for the trees and the evidence called on behalf of the ryots shews that they had the use and enjoyment of the trees. I do not think it necessary for us to consider the questions of law raised in the cases of Narayana Ayyangar. v. Orr (1902) I.L.R. 26 M. 252 and Bodda Godappa v. The Maharaja of Vizianagnram (1906) I.L.R. 30 M. 155. No doubt there are cases in which damages have been awarded to Zamindars in respect of trees cut by the ryots specially possibly in the case of fruit trees, and the trees in question in this case are fruit trees. Cases which turn upon special agreements as between the Zamindar and the ryot do not afford us very much assistance in this case. We have to deal with it with reference to the special condition to which I have referred and in the light of the evidence with regard to user and in view of the fact that the Zamindar did not think it necessary or was not able to adduce any evidence before the District Court. I am not prepared to say that the learned Judge was wrong in upholding the Collector s award with regard to the question of trees.