LexR. V. M. NEELADRI RAO & ANR. versus BOARD OF REVENUE, HYDERABAD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
538
R. V. M. NEELADRI RAO & ANR.
A
v.
BOARD OF REVENUE, HYDERABAD & ORS.
September 23, 1969
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
I!.
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areo) Estates (Abolition artd Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act (26 °f 1948), s. 20 and Rule l(ii)of the Rules made
thereunder-If rule repugnant to s. 20-Lessee fron1 proprietor of impar-
tible estate-Rent-If ces,w:s could
be
deducted-Co1npensation-Net
annual inconic-How determined-If interest payable to lessee on ~·1nount
collected as rent and withheld by Government.
Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act (30 of 1947), s. 3-
C
Lessee's right· to rent-Redur·ed rent or land revenue settled by Ryotwari
settlement.
Interest Act (32 of 183' •-Payn1ent of interest under-When pern1is-
sible.
The appellants were the ·anslcrees of lease-hold rights granted by the
proprietor of an impartible \late in respect of lands in the estate.
The
estate was notified and ab .. ished in 1948 under the Andbra Pradesh
D
(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1948.
The Manager \\-'ho \Vas appointed collected the rent as reduced
under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947, direct
from the tenants in possession of the lease-hold lands from the fasli year
1357, but did not pay it over to the appellants.
Ryotwari settlen1ent was
introduced in the lands in 1959 (!asli 1369), and in 1960 (fasli 1370),
the lease, which was covered by s. 20 of the Abolition Act, was tern1inated,
the unexpired portion of the lease period being 26 years.
The appellants
"
were paid in 1961: (1) rO:rtain sun1s to\vards the amount collected a~
rent till the termination of the lease. and (2) compensation.. No interest
\Vas paid on the rent collected by the; Manager.
On the question regarding the correctness of the basis of the calculation;,
niade by the respondent,
HELD : (I ) The rcspor dent was right in holding that the appellants
were entitled only to the rent!> collected, under s. 3 ( 4) Of the Rent Reduc-
F
tion Act, and not to the assessment made by way of ryotwari settlemei:it
under s. 22 of the Abolition Act. That as'lessment was a matter bet\veen
the Government and the tenant and. if, by virtue of it, the Government was
entitled to more an1ount as and revenue than the rent payable under the
Rent Reduction Act, the <ir 11ellants had no right to such excess amount.
[542 F-H]
(2) (a) Under s. 20(2. · of the Abolition Act rules for <letcrn1ining
G
compensation had to be fn-,med having regard to the value of the right
and the unexpired portion nf the period for which the right was created.
Rule 1 (ii) framed under tt·e section, provides that in the case of a righl
\vhich was created for a sp(~cified number of year.11, the compensation shall
be limited either jo twenty times the net annual income or the net annual
income multiplied by -the unexpired portion of the period of such right,
\Vhichever is less; and, under r. 2, net annual 1:1come is the average net
income during 3 fasli years p{'eceding the fasli year in which the right
H
W'.lS terminated
S:nce the rule is framed having regard to the unexpired
p~riod. there is. no repugnancy hetween the secti.:Jn and the rule. [543 B-
G; 544 E-H; 545 A]
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
NEELADRI RAO v. BOARD OF REVENUE (Grover, J.)
539
.
(b) The settlement rates under the ryotwari settlement represent what
is payable to the Government as revenue and do not represent what is due
as rent to the appellants from their tenants.
Therefore, the respondent
:was right in determining the net annual income under r. 1 (ii) by taking
into account only the rert as fixed under the Rent Reduction Act in the
three preceding fasli years 1367-1369 and not the settiement rate for
the fasli year 1369. [544 D-E]
(c) The definition of rent in the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908,
incorporated into the Abolition Act, and the sections of the Aboj1tion
Act show that 'rent' includes any local tax_. cess etc.
The original patta
granted by the proprietor of the impartible estate provided that the lessees
should pay the cesses.
Hence, -the net income could only be arrived at
by taking into account the cesses payable by the le'>see.
Therefore, the
respondent was justified in deducting from the annual gross income
the
cesses, for arriving at the net annual income which is the basis of com-
pensation. [545 E-G]
·
(3) On general principles of equity as well as under the InteresExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.