AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govinda menon, J.—This appeal is devoid of merits The appellant, the Mahrajah of Pithapuram, claims compensation from the Government
for converting certain lands of his, which were originally agricultural, into non-agricultural lands and also for the use of poromboke lands during the
period when the military occupied them, as well as for the loss which he is alleged to have sustained owing to his not getting the fisheries auction
amount As regards the first claim it is represented to us by the Government Pleader that the kudiwaram tenants have been or are going to be paid
compensation for converting the lands to their former state. The person who has suffered by the military occupation is really the kudiwaram tenant
and it is he who ought to be compensated and not the Zamindar. Mr. Ramakrishna Rao for the appellant contends that under S. 151 of the Estates
Land Act, if the kudiwaramdar changes the character and nature of the land, then the Zamindar or the landholder is entitled to be compensated for
such change. Here there is no action by any of the tenants in changing the land from agricultural into non agricultural. What has happened is that by
the authority of the superior sovereign power, lands were occupied by the military and during the period of that occupation the agricultural nature
of the land was converted into non agricultural, probably by the erection of buildings and other structures. This occupation was by a power which
is superior to the kudiwaramdar and therefore S. 151 of the Estates Land can have no application. As we have already stated the persons who are
entitled to compensation are the tenants who have been or are going to be paid. With regard to the compensation for the Poromboke lands
reliance is placed upon the circumstance that if the poromboke lands are not used for the purpose for which they are intended, then the Zamindar is
entitled to resume them There is no question of the kudiwaramdar not using the lands for the purpose for which they are intended. Even here it
cannot be said that the Zamindar is entitled to get anything by way of compensation because he has not suffered any damage. With regard to the
fishery rights the learned District Judge says that the evidence of P. W. 1 cannot be accepted because he has not proved to the satisfaction of the
Court that the fisheries have been auctioned or that a sum of Rs. 100 was recovered by such auction
All the three points urged on behalf of the appellant failing, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed with costs.