9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (9) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rights in and over the remaining area of acres 150.52 cents. The third appellant is an assignee from the second appellant. 3. On the enactment of the Madras Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (Act XXVI of 1948), hereinafter called the Act, the title of which was changed to the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, XXVI of 1948, the Pithapuram Estate was notified and abolished with effect from September 7, 1949. The lands in question were taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act and the Manager who had been appointed ordered that the rent should be collected direct from the tenants in possession of the lease-hold and under Section 55(1) of the Act from the fasli year 1357 onwards on the reduced rates notified under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act later called Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, Act XXX of 1947. The first appellant filed a petition before the Estates Abolition Tribunal Vizianagram for payment of the proportionate share of compensation out of compensation payable for the estate of Pithapuram. That petition was opposed by the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellants raised objections to the extent of the land as also the amount of collections determined by the Board. On October 23, 1961 the Board determined that a sum of ₹ 44,351.80 should be paid to the second appellant towards compensation payable under Section 20 of the Act. The payment, however, which was made was not for that amount and a sum of ₹ 4,000/- was deducted on the plea that some excess collection had been made by the lessee prior to the notified date. Ultimately the second appellant was paid out of these amounts a sum of ₹ 1,499.16. It was held that with regard to the extent of acres 150.52 cents on which the first appellant claimed compensation this area belonged to the Government and was not part of the estate. The appellants raised various objections but without success. 4. A learned single judge of the High Court, who heard the writ petition, held that the proper course for the appellants to follow for the determination of the extent of the land was by way of a suit and that such a suit was not barred by Section 20(2) of the Act. It was held that there could have been no settlement under Section 22 of the Act for Fasli 1369 and therefore t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e it had not been raised before the High Court it is not open to the appellants to agitate it for the first time before this Court. At any rate, there seems to be little force in the submission which has been made. It cannot be disputed that the appellants were entitled to the amount collected by the Government under Act XXX of 1947 because even after the notification of the estate under Section 3 of the Act the provisions of that Act including Section 3(4) relating to reduction of rents and the collection of the arrears of rent and the obligation to pay the same to the land holder continued to remain applicable. Under Section 16 every person whether land holder or a ryot who became entitled to ryotwari patta was liable to pay to the Government such assessment as might be lawfully imposed on the land. That assessment had to be made by way of a ryotwari settlement under Section 22. Till the settlement was made the rent payable under Act XXX of 1947 was to constitute the land revenue payable to the Government from the notified date under Section 23 of the Act. But the assessment as settled under Section 22 was a matter between the Government and the ryot and if, by virtue of the sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i year in which such right is terminated.... The argument on behalf of the appellants is that the rates of rent prevailing in Fasli years 1367 and 1368 were the rents fixed under Act XXX of 1947 and the rate prevailing in Fasli year 1369 was the one settled under Section 22 of the Act. Therefore the average net income should have been computed with reference to the net reduced rate prevailing in Fasli years 1367 and 1368 and the settlement rate fixed in Fasli year 1369. The view of the High court was that till the determination of the lease under the third proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act the rights which the appellants had acquired under the patta were preserved and if the Government had not undertaken to make these collections the tenants would have paid the land holder only the rents as reduced by Act XXX of 1947. The fact that the Government had made the collections did not confer higher rights upon the appellants. After referring to the provisions in Section 23 that the land revenue payable to the Government with effect from the notified date shall, until the ryotwari settlement effected in pursuance of Section 22 had been brought into force in the estate, be calculated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortion of the lease. As observed by the High Court it only envisages that this should be taken into account along with the value of the right. We find no repugnancy between Rule 1(ii) and Section 20(2) of the Act. 9. The next question on which a good deal of stress has been laid relates to the deduction made on account of the cesses. It has been submitted that owing to Section 3(b) of the Act the estate vested in the Government and after such vesting there would be no land holder and therefore there was none to whom cesses were to be paid. So the lessees even if originally liable to pay the cess ceased to be so liable after the vesting of the estate in the Government by virtue of Section 3(f) which provides that the relationship of a land holder and a ryot shall, as between them, be extinguished. It is pointed out that by virtue of the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act the land holder or the ryot who became entitled to the ryotwari patta would be liable to pay to the Government such assessment as might be lawfully imposed on the land and these cesses were collected from the ryots by the Government. Therefore the appellants were under no liability to pay the cess after the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bligation existed on the part of the Government to pay interest to the land holders in case the amounts collected were not paid as and when collected. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta v. Life Insurance Corporation of India MANU/SC/0254/1962MANU/SC/0254/1962 : [1963] Supp.2 S.C.R.971 the appellant carried on life insurance business in addition to other insurance business. On the passing of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, which was intended to nationalise all life insurance business, "its controlled business" stood vested in The Life Insurance Corporation of India from the appointed date but the company was entitled to compensation. The Life Insurance Tribunal to whom the dispute between the company and the Life Insurance Corporation had been referred awarded certain amount as compensation out of which a set off was to be allowed on a sum which was specified. It was held that the company was entitled to interest on the balance at 4% per annum. Reference was made in this case to a number of English and Indian decisions in which the rule has been laid down that though under the statute there is no provision for payment of interest it should, nevertheless, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
