VENKATA SUBBARAYA IYER ALIAS PAPIER AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF SALEM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality of an order of the Collector of Salem directing the attachment of the petitioners' land for payment of land revenue stated to be owing by the petitioners is the subject matter of the application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the issue of a direction to quash the order of attachment.

(2.) THERE is not much dispute about the facts of the case and I will state them very briefly. The petitioners claim to be the descendants of a grantee of an agraharam inam in the village of Papanaickanpatti in the district of Salem. The date of the original grant is stated to be as early as 17th Century but nothing turns upon its exact date or its precise terms. In or about 1864 at the time of the Inam Settlement the quit rent payable on the property was fixed and the Thrishavekam which was the grant in favour of the petitioners was determined at 1/6th of the beriz of the lands. The petitioners held the lands now attached Under a patta under which they were bound to pay rent to the mittadar and by an arrangement between the mittadar and the agraharamdars the Thrishavekam was agreed to be deducted from this payment and the balance alone being paid to the landholder. The village in question which was part of the mitta was taken over by the Government under the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (XXVI of 1948). It is now common ground that prior to the abolition of the estate and the taking over by the Government the petitioners and their co -sharers were paying to the landholder the rent normally payable less this deduction in regard to Thrishvekam right. On the notification and the taking over of this estate, the entire lands comprised in the estate became the property of the Government under Section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act. The petitioners continued to hold the lands cultivated by them on patta even after the Government took over this estate. The point that arises for consideration in this writ petition relates to the amount of the land revenue payable in regard to these patta lands.

(3.) MR . Chandrasekhara Ayyar learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the rent payable to the landholder in Section 23(c)(ii) which I have extracted above would have to be only the actual amount paid and that the Government had no right to go back upon the arrangement under which the Agraharan dars or the inamdars were entitled to deduct the Thrishavekam amount from the rent. He pointed out that in the pattas issued by the mittadar prior to the notification the amount payable by the Agraharamdars was determined only after allowing for this deduction,