SRI SRI SRI RAMACHENDRA MARADARAJ DEO GARU ZAMINDAR OF KHALLIKOTE AND ATTAGADA ESTATES Vs. BEERO POLLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in these appeals - the plaintiff in the Court below-is the Zamindar of Khallikote and Attagada Estates in the District of Ganjam and the respondents, the defendants in the Court below, are his ryots. The suits arise out of a settlement of rents carried out under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act. By an order dated the fourth of September, 1923, the Local Government directed a settlement of rents in respect of 71 villages in the plaintiff's estate under Section 168(1) of the said Act. A survey and preparation of a record of rights under Secs.164 to 166 had preceded the sanction of the settlement of rents. The special Revenue Officer proceeded to settle a fair and equitable rent for the lands in the villages specified, in accordance with the rules made by the Local Government under Section 215 of the Act. Though the officer followed almost identical lines in settling the rents of all these villages, yet owing to events which happened subsequently and will be mentioned later, it is convenient to divide the villages we are concerned with in these appeals into two distinct groups, one group consisting of 14 villages and the other of 51 villages.

(2.) In respect of the first group, the Revenue Officer published draft rent rolls on 21 June, 1924. The method of settlement followed by him was necessarily based on the prevailing system of rent collection in the estate (which differs considerably from that prevailing in other parts of the presidency) known as khostgutta system, the chief incidents of which are : (1) in theory, the landlord is entitled to half the gross produce but (2) in practice however, rent is not collected in kind from each ryot but a single cash demand is fixed annually in respect of the lands in the whole village and a single joint muchilika obtained from the leading ryots. "All khost muchilika lands in each village form a single holding over which a rent is annually settled between the zamindar and the ryots according to the estimated gross produce thereon." The settlement of rents on these lands by the Revenue Officer consisted merely of a commutation of grain rents into cash rents and apportioning the total cash rent on the several lands on which they were due; the apportionment being made "in an equitable manner with reference to the nature of the soil, the advantages of irrigation, etc., possessed by each field and all other considerations mentioned in statutory Rule 18".

(3.) Several objections were preferred against the draft proposals of the Revenue Officer under Section 169 of the Act by the landholder and the pyots. Only two of such objections are relevant for the purpose of the present appeals. The landholder's objection was this. As a result of the survey it was found that the actual extent of lands in a village was greater than the extent mentioned in the khost muchilika for that village. The Revenue Officer divided and distributed the consolidated rent according to the muchilika over the whole area as surveyed on the ground that: From the terms of the khost muchilika it will be seen that the rent taken on the whole set of khost muchilika lands in each village was a consolidated one in respect of the said set of lands.