S. Marimuthu pillai vs Director of settlements, board of revenue, madras and another

Veeraswami, J.—The petitioner claims to be a ryot holding 13 acres, 40 cents of land in Kurungalur Inam Estate, which was notified and

taken over under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The estate originally belonged to the Junior Prince of Tanjore, in whose insolvency

the melwaram interest was sold by auction by the Official Receiver. The petitioner, who was holding the kudiwaram interest in the extent of 13

acres 40 cents, purchased the melwaram interest therein at one of such auctions. He claimed proportionate compensation for the melwaram

interest he had purchased. But the Tribunal, before whom interim deposit had been made, had disallowed that claim. This and similar cases were

the subject-matter of a decision by a Division Bench of this Court in S. Marimuthu Pillai and Others Vs. T.R. Krishna Joshi and Others, in which

the view was taken that a person who, while owning the kudiwaram interest, purchased the melwaram interest in his holding will not be regarded

for purposes of the Estates Land Act as a landholder as defined therein, and that he would be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of his holding

only under S. 11 of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. On that view, it was held that the ryotwari demand on such lands should be included in the

computation of the basic annual sum under S. 31(1). The State of Madras was not a party to this decision. But Madras Act XXXIV of 1958 was

enacted introducing Ss. 30-A and 35-A to Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The circumstances in which, the two sections were enacted and the

precise scope of the two sections, I have considered in Vyravan Chettiar Chatram by Hereditary Trustee, D. Shanmuga Raja Vs. The Board of

Revenue by the Commissioner of Settlements of Estates, . It is unnecessary to reiterate them here. Briefly stated, the Legislature apparently

purported to reverse the decision of this Court in Marimuthu Pillai v. Krishna Joshi (1). At the end of that judgment, this Court said that if the

parties were aggrieved by any error in the computation of the basic annual sum they would be free to pursue their remedies under the law to obtain

a rectification of the error, if any. The petitioner applied, therefore, to the Director of Settlements asking to include the ryotwari demand on his

lands in computing the basic annual sum, so that he could get proportionate compensation for his melwaram interest. This the Director of

Settlements declined to do, and the Board of Revenue agreed with him. This petition is to quash their orders. In support of the petition, Mr. M. S.

Venkatarama Aiyar, argued two points. One of them is that under S. 35-A (2) it is only where a landholder as such is entitled to ryotwari patta, the

ryotwari demand is in respect of the holding would be liable to be excluded in the determination of the basic annual sum. The other is that if S. 35-

A (2) is construed in a manner that, even though the ryotwari demand pertained to lands for which the landholder obtained patta, as ryoti under S.

11, such demand was liable to be excluded, this amounted to deprivation of compensation which, by the decision of this Court in S. Marimuthu

Pillai and Others Vs. T.R. Krishna Joshi and Others, he would be entitled to. Then S. 35-A (2) would be inconsistent with Part III of the

Constitution and not protected by Art. 31A or 31B and, therefore, void. It seems to me that it is unnecessary to deal with these points at any

length in view of what the learned Advocate-General has stated on behalf of the State of Madras. In Vyravan Chettiar Chatram by Hereditary

Trustee, D. Shanmuga Raja Vs. The Board of Revenue by the Commissioner of Settlements of Estates, while considering the scope and effect of

S. 35-A, I expressed the view that ryotwari demand on land for which the landholder has been given a patta not as a landholder but as a ryot

under S.11, is not liable to be excluded in the computation of the basic annual sum. No doubt the facts in that decision were different. There a

Dharmilla inamdar owned ryoti lands in the major inam and in respect of such ryoti lands he had been granted patta as a ryot under S. 11. The

Board of Revenue took the view that under S. 35-A, the royotwari demand on such land was liable to be excluded for purposes of determining the

basic annual sum. This Court pointed out that the Board''s view was not justified on the terms of S. 35-A. But the principle of the decision in that

case is that where the ryotwari demand pertained to lands for which ryotwari patta has been issued to a person not as a landholder, but as a ryot

under S. 11, such demand would be a component to be taken in to account in the determination of the basic annual sum under S. 31 (1). In view

of this principle laid down in that case the learned Advocate-General states, I think rightly, that this petition will have to be allowed.

The petition is allowed and the orders of the Board of Revenue and of the Director of Settlements are hereby quashed. There will be no order

as to costs.