JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition to revise an order dated 21-1-48 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chatrapur, declining to stay a commutation proceeding u/s 40 of the Madras Estates Land Act merely because Government have issued orders u/s 164 of that Act directing the preparation of record-of-rights for village Potlampur in Chatrapur Talluk of Ganjam District. 2. The material facts are these: The Petitioners are Inamdars of village Potlampur and the Government of Orissa by a notification dated the 19th march, 1948 directed a survey and preparation of record-of-rights of this village. The said notification was issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 164 of that Act. Prior to the issue of the said notification the opposite party, who are all ryots of the village had filed an application for commutation of rent u/s 40 of the Act and it was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Inamdars relyfng on Sub-section (2) of Section 178, urged before the Revenue Divisional Officer that the commutation proceeding should be kept pending in view of the express provisions of that Sub-section. The R.D.O. however, rejected their prayer and hence this revision petition. 3. The answer to the question in controversy depends on a true construction of Sub-section (2) of Section 178 of the Act which runs thus: 178 (1) When an application has been made u/s 168, no suit, application or proceeding shall be commenced or continued in any Civil or Revenue Court under Sections 30, 38 and 40 until after the final publication of the record-of-rights under Sub-section (3) of Section 170. (2) When an Order has been made u/s 164 directing the preparation of record-of-rights, no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain or proceed with any suit or application for the alteration of the rent in the area to which the record-of-rights applies until after the final publication of such record-of-rights, it will be noticed that Sub-section (1) says that when an application is made u/s 168, no suit, application or proceeding shall be commenced and continued in any court under Sections 30, 38 and 40 until after the final publication of the record-of-rights under Sub-section (8) of Section 170. Sub-section (2), however, says that when an order is made u/s 164, no Civil or Revenue Court shall either entertain or proceed with any suit or application "for the alteration of rent" until after the final publication of the record-of-rights. Sub-section (2) does not expressly refer to Sections 30, 38 and 40. (4) Survey and settlement proceedings are broadly divided into two stages. In the first stage, there is survey and preparation of record-of-rights. For that purpose an order of the State Government is required under Sub-section (1) of Section 164. After the preparation of record-of-rights the State Government may on certain conditions; being fulfilled direct the settlement of fair and equitable rent. This direction is issued u/s 168(1) of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 118 deals with the stage after the order for settlement of fair and equitable rent has issued; whereas Sub-section (2) deals with the stage between the date of the order directing survey and preparation of record-of-rights u/s 164(1) and the order directing settlement of fair and equitable rent u/s 168. These sections are found in Chapter XI dealing with survey, record-of-rights and settlement of rents. Apart from the provisions of that Chapter, every landholder and a ryot is conferred a right to seek the help of the Revenue Court for the purpose of ; (1) enhancement of rent where rent is paid in cash and not in kind (Section 30) ; (2) reduction of rent where rent Is paid in kind (Section 88); (3) commutation of rent payable in kind (Section 40) and (4) alteration of rent where there is alteration in the area of the holding (Section 42). Sub-section (1) of Section 178 leaves no room for doubt or ambiguity. All pending proceedings either for enhancement of cash rent or reduction of cash rent or commutation of rent shall be stayed as soon as an application is made u/s 168 for settlement of fair and equitable rent. The necessity for this Sub-section is obvious. Sub-section (1) of Section 178 leaves no room for doubt or ambiguity. All pending proceedings either for enhancement of cash rent or reduction of cash rent or commutation of rent shall be stayed as soon as an application is made u/s 168 for settlement of fair and equitable rent. The necessity for this Sub-section is obvious. Once settlement operations are commenced in a particular area and a direction has issued for settlement of fair and equitable rent in that area it is desirable that such settlement of rent should be made only by the settlement authorities who have specialized in that work and all proceedings pending in the Revenue Courts either for enhancement of rent or reduction of rent or commutation of rent should be stayed. Settlement of fair and equitable rent may involve either enhancement or reduction of the cash rent already paid or commutation on a fair and equitable basis of produce rent Into money rent. Settlement Officers are in a much better position to decide these questions than Revenue Courts. 5. Sub-section (2), however, presents some difficulty. Does the expression "suit or application for the alteration of rent" refer to an application under Sections 30. 38 or 42 or does it also include an application for commutation of rent u/s 40? Unlike Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) does not refer to Sections 30, 33 and 40. Where a ryot is paying money-rent an application for enhancement of rent or for reduction of rent under Sections 30 and 33 may be an application for alteration of rent and may come within the scope of Sub-section (2). There in a Calcutta decision reported In Brojendro Kishore v. Khalil Nagarchi 21. C.L.J. 489, where while construing a similar provision occurring in Section 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act it was held that a suit for enhancement of rent was also a suit for alteration of rent within the meaning of Section 111 of that Act. Similarly, there will be no difficulty In holding that an application u/s 42 for alteration of rent where there is alteration in the area of the holding will also be hit by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 178. 6. An application for commutation of rent u/s 40; however, stands on a different footing. Similarly, there will be no difficulty In holding that an application u/s 42 for alteration of rent where there is alteration in the area of the holding will also be hit by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 178. 6. An application for commutation of rent u/s 40; however, stands on a different footing. The object of a commutation proceeding is to change the nature of the rent from rent payable in kind either In whole or part, to rent wholly payable in cash. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of that section make It absolutely clear that instead of paying rent in kind which may vary from year to year according to the yield, the ryot should be given the benefit of a definite money rent. In Sub-section (1) of Section 40 we find the words "rent on the holding commuted to a definite money rent" and again In Sub-section (2) of that section it is stated that money rent is 'in lieu of rent in kind". Thus In a commutation proceeding though there is an alteration in the nature of the there Is, in essence, no alteration in rent. Doubtless, the principles to be observed in a commutation proceeding as described in Sub-section (3) of Section 40 and in the rules framed thereunder require various factors to be taken into consideration and as pointed out in Suryanarayana v. Rajagopala AIR 1919 Mad. 588, the Revenue Court is not concerned with the mere arithmetical calculation of averages or application of a market price to commute grain into money. Some reduction may have to be made in the calculation on account of other factors mainly because once fixity is given to the cash rent there may be a corresponding reduction as regards the quantum so fixed. Thus, if the yield of a particular year be taken and the produce- rent payable to the landlord is converted into its cash equivalent in accordance With the prevailing market rate such a rent may be higher or in some cases-lower than the commuted rent as determined by the Revenue Court. Merely be au e of this reduction or increase in rent it wilt not be proper to hold that in a commutation proceeding also there is alteration in rent. Merely be au e of this reduction or increase in rent it wilt not be proper to hold that in a commutation proceeding also there is alteration in rent. The basic conception of a commutation proceeding is to settle a definite money rent in lieu of rent in kind and this main objective cannot be lost sight of while making a detailed calculation for the purpose of arriving at a commuted rent. In my opinion an application for commutation cannot be considered as an application for "alteration of rent" without doing violence to the language. 7. Though there are no Madras decisions on the subject, there are, I think, several decisions under the Bengal Tenancy Act which are helpful. 8. As early as 1869 in a Calcutta case reported in Miterjeet Singh v. Toondun Singh 12 S.W.R, 15, it was held that any arrangement by which a certain rent in cash was paid in lieu of rent in kind Was not a variation in the rate of rent. In Hassan, Kuli Khan v. Nakchhedi Nenis ILR 33 Cal 200, it was held that the conversion of cash rent into produce rent will not be regarded as enhancement of rent within the meaning of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The following passage from that decision may be quoted: The conversion related to the medium by which the rent was payable j that is, produce instead of cash. The produce would be a varying quantity and in years of drought might be very little or nothing. We think an enhancement under the section quoted must be referable to an enhancement of the same kind of rent. This decision has been followed in Govinda Mandar v. Banarsi Prasad 18 C.L.J. 74. There is also an unreported recent decision of Justice Shearer in C.R. No. 91 of 194,5 in support of this view. Doubtless, in that decision he has gone so far as to say that the suits or applications referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 178 are suits or applications for the purpose of alteration of rent on the ground of alteration in area described in Section 42. This construction of the words "alteration of rent" in Sub-section (2) of Section 178 may be some what narrow. Even an application for enhancement or reduction of rent under, Section 30 or 38 may come within the scope of that section. This construction of the words "alteration of rent" in Sub-section (2) of Section 178 may be some what narrow. Even an application for enhancement or reduction of rent under, Section 30 or 38 may come within the scope of that section. But with respect I am inclined to agree with him that an application for commutation under. Section 40 cannot be an application for alteration of rent so as to be hit by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 178. 9. The Revenue Divisional Officer, therefore, took a correct view of the law. The revision is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 32/-. We are informed that though the preparation of record-of-rights for this village is complete, no order for settlement of fair and equitable rent has been made u/s 168 of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer, therefore, may expedite the disposal of the commutation proceeding. Das, J. 10. I agree. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed