Skip to content


Sri Hotha Virabhadrayya Pantulu Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Polavaram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad733; 29Ind.Cas.8
AppellantSri Hotha Virabhadrayya Pantulu
RespondentRevenue Divisional Officer, Polavaram and anr.
Excerpt:
land acquisition - land acquired by government -- apportionment of compensation amount between landlord and tenant--muchilika by tenant before madras estates land act giving up claim to compensation, effect of--madras estates land act (i of 1908), section 6(1). - .....terms in question cannot be read as an agreement by the tenant to transfer to the landlord this right to compensation in respect of any interest in the holding which might afterwards be conferred upon him by the legislature. we think, therefore, that the government agent was right in holding that the 2nd respondent was entitled to a share. as regards the amount owe, compensation, the government agent does not say that he has taken the tenant's interest into account and refers only to the landlord's interest. the value of the landlord's share as paid by him being rs. 3 per annum, it is conceded that the tenant's interest may be estimated at a like amount and 20 years' purchase at rs. 120 an acre be awarded for the whole with the usual 15 percent, of which the appellant will be entitled.....
Judgment:

1. We think the terms of the muchilikas, Exhibit A, etc., which were entered into before the passing of the Madras Estates Land Act, were intended to amount to an admission by the tenant that he had no permanent interest in the holding and no claim to any compensation in the event of Its being acquired by Government. We think, however, that the muchilika must be read with reference to the state of things when it was entered into, and that the terms in question cannot be read as an agreement by the tenant to transfer to the landlord this right to compensation in respect of any interest in the holding which might afterwards be conferred upon him by the Legislature. We think, therefore, that the Government Agent was right in holding that the 2nd respondent was entitled to a share. As regards the amount owe, compensation, the Government Agent does not say that he has taken the tenant's interest into account and refers only to the landlord's interest. The value of the landlord's share as paid by him being Rs. 3 per annum, it is conceded that the tenant's interest may be estimated at a like amount and 20 years' purchase at Rs. 120 an acre be awarded for the whole with the usual 15 percent, of which the appellant will be entitled to one-half and the 2nd respondent to the other half. The appellant must pay the 2nd respondent's costs of the appeal and will recover proportionate costs against the 1st respondent who has not entered an appearance.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //