(MEMPU) RAMAYYA Vs. ZAMINDAR OF MANDASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revision Petitions relate to the settlement of rent in seven villages in the Mandasa Estate and have been filed against the order of the Ravenue Board which confirmed, with some alterations the order of the Settlement Officer, Ganjam.

(2.) The ryots put in an application for survey and settlement in fasli 1321. The order of the Settlement Officer was passed in fasli 1331. In determining the fair and equitable rent in respect of the lands, the Settlement Officer acted upon the principle embodied in Section 40, Sub-section 3 Clauses (a) and (b), as he was entitled to do, under Section 168(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act ; and in calculating the average rental value, he took into consideration the ten years ending with fasli 1331. He also excluded fasli 1328 from his calculation as that had been declared to be a famine year by the Government. The Board of Revenue ordered that faslies 1329 and 1330 also should be left out of account in making the calculation.

(3.) The learned Advocate General, on behalf of the ryots who are the petitioners herein argued before us three points : (I) That faslies 1328,1329 and 1330 having been excluded, the Court below has in its final order taken only a seven-year average instead of a ten-year average and that, therefore, it should have taken into consideration the average rental value of of faslis 1319, 1320 and 1321 also to make the ten years required under Section 40 Sub-section (3) Clause (a) ; (2) that the method of calculating the rent payable for each field adopted by the Revenue Officer and accepted by the Revenue Board is not correct ; and (3) that in determining the fair and equitable rent, the Revenue Officer has not paid sufficient attention to the rent paid by the occupancy ryots of the neighbouring lands.