Case: Shree Raja Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannadha Rao Panthu Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

. It is unnecessary to state at length the past history of the landed estate in question. The necessary relevant facts in brief may only be mentioned. Shree Raja Kandregula1 Srinivasa Jagannadha Rao Panthulu Bahadur was the Inamdar of village Kalipatnam in Narsapuram Taluka in the West Godavari District. On November 2, 1948, the Government issued a notification (Ex. A-13) under Section 3 (2) of the Reduction of Rent Act reducing the rates of rent payable in respect of delta dry ryoti lands in Kalipatnam village. The Inam Settlement Officer, Vijayawadha, then took proceedings to determine whether Kalipatnam was an inam estate as defined in Sec. 2 (7) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. After inquiry he made the order dated May 31, 1950 (Ex A-1) holding that the suit village was an inam estate. Feeling aggrieved by these two orders the appellant- instituted the suit, out of which the present appeals arise

Court's reasoning:
The submission appears to us to possess merit. The Special Officer had an obligation under Sec. 2 of the Reduction of Rent Act to determine in respect of Kalipatnam village the average rate of cash rent per acre for each class of ryoti land in existence at the time of the commencement of the Act such as, wet, dry and garden. This had to be determined on the basis of relevant material. The Special Officer, however, proceeded to found his determination only on the report of he Special Assistant (Ex. E-24) which, as discussed above, only took into account the entry in the settlement register with respect to the soil of Losaragutlapadu. This really means that the determination of the Special Officer is solely based on the settlement register containing no entry in regard to Kalipatnam. This material is irrelevant and cannot constitute a rational basis for founding thereon the determination of the Special Officer. His determination must, therefore, be held to be based on no evidence, with the result that it must be held to be in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. A fortiori the order of the Government made under Sec. 3 (2) exclusively on the basis of the recommendation of the Special Officer must in consequence be held to be not in conformity with the provisions of the Reduction of Rent Act, and, therefore outside the purview of Sec. 3 (2) of that Act. Section 8 (i) would accordingly be inapplicable and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts cannot be excluded. The notification Ex. A-13 must, therefore, be struck down as contrary to law and ultra vires the Reduction of Rent ActWe were taken through the relevant portions of Ex.4 which is a report from the Special Assistant to the Special Officer for rentIt is observed therein that there are no wet or garden lands in village Kalipatnam and that the entire land is delta dry in which wet paddy is raised under Kalipatnam project channel. The ryots pay to the Government Rs. 5/per acre by way of water rate. It was emphasised by the appellants learned counsel that the fact that wet paddy is raised in this land, which is described as delta dry and that water rate is paid to the Government, must conclusively show that the land is not delta dry but wet. It is the factual position and not bare entry in the settlement register which should be the guiding factor. Support for this submission was also sought from the recent unreported decision of this Court in O. K. Muthuswamy Mudaliar v. State of Madras, Civil Appeals Nos.in which the following observations occur:The mere fact that the lands are registered dry does not affect their value. The lands are fertile and are cultivated with wet crop. They are irrigable with the waters of the river Bhavani. There is abundant supply of water throughout the year. The landowners had the right to take water for the irrigation of 400 acres.