Chandra Reddy, C.J.
1. The question raised in this writ petition relates to the constitutionality of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. The vires of this Act is put in challenge mainly on the ground that it does not provide for compensation to the inamdar and as such is repugnant to Article 31 of the Constitution.
2. The short answer to the contention of Sri Ranganathan is that Section 4(3) provides for compensation in the shape of a ryotwari patta to the inamdar for one-third of the inam. It is true that the inamdar is not paid compensation in terms of cash. But, we are not impressed with the argument of Sri Ranganatham that allotting a one-third of the inam sought to be abolished does not amount to compensation. In our opinion, the assignment of a share in the inam abolished or allotment of a definite extent of land is as good a compensation as payment in cash. In fact Section 4(3) speaks of the grant of patta to the inamdar as compensation payable to him in lieu of the extinguishment of his rights in the two-thirds share of such land. Therefore, Section 4(3) contains a provision for the payment of compensation in the form of a ryotwari patta for one-third of the inam.
3. In this connection, we may look at the relevant provisions of the Constitution.
4. Article 31 as amended in 1955 has laid down that
'......no such law shall be called in questionin any Court on the ground that the compensationprovided by that law is not adequate.'
In view of this provision, this Court cannot go intothe adequacy of the compensation payable to theinamdar.
4a. There is also another difficulty in the way of the petitioners succeeding in the writ petition. Article 31A which was amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, omitting the unnecessary portions, recites :
'Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for:
(a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights,
XX XX XX XX
shall be deemed to be void on the ground that itis inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges anyOf' the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 orArticle 31:'
The proviso has no bearing on the present enquiryand so it need not be referred to. Article 31A reads:
(a) the expression 'estate' shall in relation toany local area, have the same meaning as thatexpression or its local equivalent has in the existingJaw relating to land tenures in force in that area,and shall also include any jagir, inarn or muafi orother similar grant and in the States of Madras andKerala any janmam right;
xx xx xx xx
5. It is manifest from Section 31-A that any Law which provides for extinguishment or modification of any rights in an estate including an inam could not be put in question on the ground that it abridges or takes away the right of the inamdar or the owner of the estate.
6. It was ruled in Atmaram v. State of Punjab, : AIR1959SC519 that the provisions of Article 31A of the Constitution bearing on the interpretation of the word 'estate' or 'rights' have been deliberately made as wide as possible in order to include all kinds of rights--quantitative and qualitative in an area co-extensive with an estate or a portion thereof. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary for us to; consider whether Section 31(2A) also governs a case like this.
7. In our opinion, the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 is therefore, not open to challenge even on the ground that no provision is made for payment of compenation. .
8. No other point has been raised before us in this writ petition.
9. In !he result, the petition fails and is dismissed with the costs of the Government. Advocate'sfee Rs. 100/-.