DONDU SUBBARAJU Vs. SRI RUDRARAJU VENKATRAJU (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of suits filed by tenants under Section 173 of the Estates Land Act and the arguments were confined to the claim in respect of mamul wet lands, and the ground for interference is also confined to the complaint that the Settlement Officer, in the proceedings taken under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act, did not note in the Record of Rights an agreement entered into in 1926 between the landlord and the ryot under which the water rate payable by , hem in respect of the mamul wet land was to be Rs. 2-8-0 per acre with no right in either party to claim a revision of the same and that the rent has been settled without giving effect to this agreement. The zamindar's contention was that the agreement was not valid and binding, that it was not binding on the officer who settled the rents under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act and that this suit was not maintainable in respect of this relief.

(2.) The subject-matter of these appeals are lands situate in the village of Neredumilli. The kudicat in the village comprised 625.49 acres out of which 228. I was mamul wet. When the delta system was introduced the original source of irrigation in several of these zamindari villages had to be interfered with. But in consideration of the same, Government collected water rate in respect of the additional lands brought under cultivation as wet by charging a definite sum of money per acre irrigated over and above the extent, which was mamul wet. The amount so collected in respect of this village from the zamindar was being distributed among the various ryots whose lands were cultivated with water supplied by the delta system of irrigation. Such a system ignored the claim of the ryots in respect of mamul wet. The original mamul wet was not localised, and hence it was that Government had to levy a water rate on the entire area irrigated by the new system minus the old wet instead of levying it on the area of the lands that were brought under wet cultivation subsequent to the introduction of the delta system. There were disputes between the zamindar and the ryots in respect of the mamul wet lands and in consideration of the zamindar localising the mamul wet lands it was agreed that the ryots holding the mamul wet lands should in future pay only Rs. 2-8-0 instead of the Rs. 5 per acre which they were paying and that neither party could have any right to revise the water rate of Rs. 2-8-0 per acre agreed to be paid. It is a finding of fact and is not disputed in this Court. Subsequently there was a settlement of accounts in respect of the rents payable for the various lands in the village. The ryots of the lands in dispute in these appeals wanted the Settlement Officer to note in the Record of Rights that there was this agreement and they wanted the agreement to be given effect to in fixing the amount payable as rent. Though the officer stated that it was not necessary at that stage to enter it in the record of rights and that it would be considered in fixing the amounts, he did not give effect to it in settling the rent of these lands. The appellants in all these cases therefore had to file suits and these suits related not only to mamul wet lands but to other lands as well. There were other grounds also on which the suits were based; but they have all been found against, and they are not pressed in this Court, the claim being confined in this Court only to mamul wet lands, and the ground of attack being confined to the failure to note in the record of rights the special agreement with regard to water rate.

(3.) The first Court found that the agreement was true and valid, that it was a special condition in respect of a holding at a favourable rate and that the omission to show it. in the record of rights was a sufficient ground for filing a suit under Section 173, and as this agreement had been ignored in arriving at the fair and equitable rent, he directed Rs. 2-8-0 per acre to be deducted out of the rent settled and gave a decree accordingly. The lower appellate Court held that the agreement was void against the ryots inasmuch as it effected a permanent enhancement of the rent payable to the landholder that it was not one protected by Section 26 and that such an agreement cannot override the powers of the revenue authorities in settling a fair and equitable rent. He negatived the ryots claim in respect of the mamul wet lands and set aside the lower Court's decree with regard to them.