STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus KANNAPALLI CHINNA VENKATA CHALAMAYYA SASTRI

Citation: [1963] 1 S.C.R. 155 · Decided: 30-03-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
STATE OF ANDHR.A PRADESH 
v. 
KANNAPALLI CHINNA VENKATA 
CHALAMAYYA ~ASTRI 
(B. _E. SINHA, c. J., P. B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAit, 
K. N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR 
and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) 
Lana-lord and a Tenant-Estate-Reduction of rent of r!/oti 
lanri-Whether unreasonable re~triction-Madras Estnte.s La,nd 
(Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Macl. XXX of 1947), s. 3 (4)-
0onstitution of India, Art. 19 (1) (f ). 
The Respondent, the sole inamdar of village Chinnavcn-
katapuram in the Parlakimidi Zamindari in the District of 
Srikakulam filed a Writ Petition before the High Court chal-
lenging Inter alia the notification issued under s. 3 (4) of the 
Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act by which the 
rents in respect of ryoti lands included in his Estate were 
reduced. He also challenged the provisions vf the Act. The 
High Court accepted the challenge to the notification on the 
ground that the net income from rents was reduced to less than 
25% of the original income and that the reduction was so sub-
stantial as to amount to an unreasonable restriction on the 
respondent's right to hold property under Art. 19 ( l) ( f) of 
the Constitution. On appeal by a certificate. 
Held that the provisions of the Act were . valid as they 
laid down ~easonable restrictions in the interest of ameliorat-
ing the conditions of tenants of ryoti land in 'Estates' who were 
at a disadvantage compared to tenants of ryotwari lands. 
Hela, further, that it is only in a theoretical case where 
a land-holder would be virtually deprived of his income by 
the reduction of rents that it can be said that the reduction 
was unreasonable. By the reduction the income of the Respon· 
dent was brought on a par with that of the highest prevailing 
rents in ryotwari lands and so it cannot be said that the 
reduction of rents made by the notification was violative 
of the land holders' rights under Art. 19 (f ). The method 
of comparing the rents prior to reduction with the rents 
after reduction for the purpose of deciding the unreasonabl-
ness of the restriction was not sound as not humane landholders 
but those who were charging unconscionable rents would 
benefit thereby. 
Ma ch 30. 
l!J6:t 
Stale of 
Andhra Prt.dt•h 
•• 
K-atinopalti Chinna 
Ve:~Jeoln r:halamayya 
Saslri 
l1 o.nclzoo J. 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 242 of 1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
September II, 19.57, of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in Writ Petition No. 201 of 1952. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer, T. V. R. Tatachari, D. 
Venkatappaya Sastri and P. D. Menon, for the appe-
llants. 
' 
K. Bhimasankaram and T. Satyanarana, for 
the respondent. 
1962. March 30. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by · 
WANCHOO, J.-·This appeal on a certificate 
granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court raises 
a question of the constitutionality of the Madras 
Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, No. XXX of 
1947, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the 
Act) and a notification issued thereunder. The 
brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. 
The respondent was the sole inamdar of village 
Chinnavenkatapuram in the Parlakimidi zamindari 
in the district of Srikakulam. 
The legislature 
the composite State of Madras passed the Act, 
which came into force from January 7, 1948, to 
provide for the redu<Jtion of rents payable by ryots 
in estates governed by the Madras Estates Land 
Act, No. I of 1908, approximately to the level of 
the assessments levied on lands in 
ryotwari 
arens in the neighbourhood and for the collection 
of such rents exclusively by the State Government. 
The Act applied to all estates as defined in s. 3 (2) 
of the Madras Estates Land Act. Section 2 provided 
for the appointment of a special officer for any 
estate or estates for the purpose of recommending 
fair and equitable rates of rent for the ryoti lands 
in such estate or 
estates and laid down the 
procedure to be followed by the special officer for 
1 S.C.R. 
SCJPREME COURT REPORTS 
157 
such purpose, and gave power to the special officer to 
determine after necessary enquiries the extent if 
any to which the rates of rent payable for each 
class of ryoti lands should in his opinion be reduced 
and to fix the rates of rent payable for each class 
of ryots after such reduction. Under s. 3, the 
special officer had to submit1 a report after 
completion of his inquiry to the State ·Government 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.