Nanneka Seshayya and Others vs The State of Madras (now Andhra Pradesh), by Collector of Krishna and Others

Bhimasankaram, J.—These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are by ryots in what was the zamidary village of Rolupade, Tiruvuru taluk in the Krishna District. They raise tire same point and are presented by two separate groups of ryots. Both impugn the validity of a Government notification under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act XXX of 1947. At the time when that Act came into force, the rents payable by these ryots were payable in kind while other ryots of the same estate were paying cash rents. When the rents were reduced in accordance with the terms of the Act, while the rent payable on lands of the same glass and quality pay-Ing cash rent was fixed at Rs. 10 per acre, the cash rent payable in respect of the lands covered by these petitions which are lands paying grain rent, was fixed at rents varying between Rs. 25 to Rs. 40 per acre. This disparity, it is stated, was not due to any difference in the classification, quality or productivity of the lands or the availability thereto of irrigational sources but entirely due to the accident that rent in kind was payable on them.

The notification fixing the rates of rent under the Act, therefore, in respect of the lands owned by the Petitioners is attacked principally on two grounds. In the first place, it is .said that the reduction is not in accordance with die object and terms of the Act and in the second place that it is opposed to the terms of Article 14 of the Constitution. Subsequent to the filing of these petitions, Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Kent) Act XXX of 1947 was amended by the insertion of a Sub-section (2A) which enacts that where the rate of rent payable in respect of ryoti land of any class is wholly in kind or partly in kind or partly in cash and the aggregate money value of the rate of rent so payable exceeds the highest rate of ryotwari assessment payable for any land of the same class in the Revenue Dist. in which such ryoti land is situated, dien only the latter rate of rent shall be payable in respect of the land. It is now conceded that the Govt, have, since this amendment, reduced the rent payable in respect; of the lands covered by these petitions to Rs. 11-14-0 per acre which is the highest rate of ryotwari assessment for similar lands in the Krishna District. It is however argued that even subsequent reduction is open to the above-mentioned objections. It is pointed out that similar lands which were paying cash rent before the notification have to pay lower rents.

In support of the first argument, reference has been made; to the preamble of the Act which states that the Act is intended ''to provide for the reduction of rents payable by the ryots in estates governed by the Madras Estates Land Act, approximately to the level of the assessments levied on lands in the ryotwari areas in the neighbourhood.'' The argument is that die reduction of the rent in the case of these lands is not approximately to the level of the ryotwari assessment in the neighbourhood. Neighbouring lands, it is said, bear considerably lower rents. The reduction of the previous rates of rent to the highest level of ryotwari assessment in the district is not a reduction to the level of ryotwari assessment in the neighbourhood. I do not see any substance in this contention. The preamble of an enactment may possibly bo called in aid for tho purpose of removing'' any difficulty in interpreting the language of a particular section in the Act: but, it cannot control or delimit the plain and natural meaning of any part of the enactment. It is not open to a Court to refuse to give effect to a plain statutory provision on the ground that it is beyond the scope and object of the Act as declared in the preamble thereto.

Nor am I prepared to agree that a revenue district is not comprehended within the meaning of the word ''neighbourhood''.

The argument in support of the second contention is that different ryots owning lands of die same class and quality are now called upon to pay .different rates of rent per acre. This difference is not based upon a reasonable classification. There is no reason whatsoever why any distinction should ba made between ryots who were previously paying rent wholly in cash and rybts paying waram rent wholly or in part. The decision in Muthu Velu and Others Vs. The State of Madras, , is cited in support of this argument. In that case, in regard to die procedure to be adopted in. levying assessment on die private lands of land-holders in inam estates, the Government of Madras gave the following instructions to their officers:

If diere are both grain rent and cash rent lands or cash rent lands only in a village the land revenue on a private land shall be th" same as that of a similar land witii the similar advantages in the neighbourhood and generally it is die cash rent land diat should be taken for comparison. But, it may so happen that the land to be compared with is a grain rent land. No comparison need be made in such cases;, but die highest ryotwari rate in the district for the same class.

The of land .shall be adopted. The latter procedure should be adopted in the case of villages where; there are only grain rent lands." The Petitioners before die Court objected to the method of calculation adopted when die ryoti land to be compared within the village was .grain, rent land, on the ground that there was unjust discrimination between the owner of private land and a ryot both of whom were entitled to ryotwari pattas under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. It was contended on behalf of the Government that generally speaking the highest ryotwari rate in .the district or taluk was far less than the commuted money rent in cases where grain rent prevailed and reference was made to die amendment of Section 3 of the Act above referred to. Dealing with this argument of the learned Advocate-General, their Lordships observed as follows:

This amendment, ho said, was found necessary because in most cases it was found that the highest rates in the district was less than the rate arrived at after communication. We are willing to accept that this might be so in many cases. But what die Petitioners say is that the same method might be adopted in respect of private lands also. That is to say, if the commuted money rent payable in respect of the grain rout ryoti lands in die village which are taken up for comparison is higher than the highest rate of assessment in the district or taluk of similar ryotwari land, then the latter may be adopted as the proper assessment for the private lands. But, if such commuted money rent of similar ryoti lands in tho village is less than the highest rate in the district or taluk, the Petitioners say that such rate should bo adoptod for the private lands as well. They contend that there can be no discrimination between ryoti lands and private lands in the matter of levying assessment. The Petitioners seek to bring home the mischief of such discrimination by reference to cases where according to the mediod adopted by the Government die highest rate in die district has been imposed on land of a poor and inferior quality. In W; P. No. 229 of 1952, for instance, the lands concerned are situated in a village in Pattukottai taluk, Tanjore district. The Petitioner there alleges that all die lands in that taluk are definitely below class 4 in the matter of diaram, but according to the instructions of the Board of Revenue, the highest assessment in the district at die rate of Rs. 16 per acre will be leviable on these inferior lands in the taluk. There is no justification for the Government to levy an assessment at such a high rate on lands which are admittedly far inferior to the class on which the highest assessment is imposed.'''' Incidentally it may be noticed that the word ''class'' in this passage only comprised the division into wet and dry. The learned judges, there! ore, issued a direction that the State should ''refrain'' from adopting die principle of imposing assessment at the highest ryot-wari rate in the district or the taluk on private land in a village in which the ryoti lands of a similar class bear only a ''grain rent''. The question which the learned judges considered hi that case was different from the question raised in these petitions. They were dealing with a case of discrimination between assessment leviable in respect of ryotwari lands and that leviable in respect of private lauds. They considered that the discrimination made between the two kinds of lands, i.e., where the ryoti land to be compared bore a grain rent could not be justified on any principle of valid classification.

They held that the rent imposed on private lands should not exceed the commuted value of the grain rent payable by the ryoti lands of a similar class. That question in the present case is whether die classification of lands into lands previously paying cash rent and lands paying waram rent in whole or in part is not valid. It is to be remembered that ryots who were paying grain rent at a time when the price of grain was very high (and that surely was the case for several years before the Rent Reduction Act came into effect) were, as a matter of fact, paying a rent higher in terms of money tram, those who were paying cash rents. The reduction therefore took this fact into account. I cannot agree that this docs not constitute a reasonable basis for differentiation between the two sets of ryots.

It is not complained that there is any inequality in the proportion of reduction. Perhaps such proportion is actually in favour of ryots previously paying grain rent. The inequality that has resulted is, it is clear, rooted in the historical fact that previously one set of ryots were paying a far higher rate of rent than the others in respect of lands of the same class and quality. It Ls not, strictly speaking, an inequality that is imposed by die new enactment, which only takes an already existing difference into the reckoning.

I am not inclined to hold that the classification is either ''arbitrary, artificial or evasive'', in the words of Mukherjea, J. (as he then was), in. the The State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, . It rests, in my opinion, ''upon a rational basis having regard to the object which the Legislature has in view'', viz., the reduction of rents of lands to the level of assessment of ryotwari kinds in the neighbourhood. It has been held by the Supreme Court that there can be a classification on a geographical basis. See D.P. Joshi Vs. The State of Madhya Bharat and Another, . I consider that a classification on a historical basis is equally rational.

In the result, the two Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 50, in each case.