ORDER:- The petitioner claims to be a ryot holding 13 acres, 40 cents of land in Kurungalur Inam Estate, which was notified and taken over under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 . The estate originally belonged to the Junior Prince of Tanjore, in whose insolvency the melwaram interest was sold by auction by the Official Receiver. The petitioner, who was holding the kudiwaram interest in the extent of 13 acres, 40 cents, purchased the melwaram interest therein at one of such auctions. He claimed proportionate compensation for the melwaram interest he had purchased. But the Tribunal, before whom interim deposit has been made, had disallowed that claim. This and similar cases were the subject-matter of a decision by a Division Bench of this Court in Marimuthu Pillai v. Krishna Joshi1 in which the view was taken that a person who, while owning the kudiwaram interest, purchased the melwaram interest in his holding will not be regarded for purposes of the Estates Land Act as a landholder as defined therein, and that he would be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of his holding only under section 11 of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. On that view, it was held that the ryotwari demand on such lands should be included in the computation of the basic annual sum under section 31 (1). The State of Madras was not a party to this decision. But Madras Act XXXIV of 1958 was enacted introducing sections 30-A and 35-A to Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The circumstances in which, the two sections were enacted and the precise scope of the two sections, I have considered in Vyravan Chettiar Chatram v. The Board of Revenue, Madras2. It is unnecessary to reiterate them here. Briefly stated, the Legislature apparently purported to reverse the decision of this Court in Marimuthu Pillai v. Krishna Joshi1. At the end of that Judgment, this Court said that if the parties were aggrieved by any error in the computation of the basic annual sum they would be free to pursue their remedies under the law to obtain a rectification of the error, if any. The petitioner applied, therefore, to the Director of Settlements, asking to include the ryotwari demand on his lands in computing the basic annual sum, so that he could get proportionate compensation for his melwaram interest. The petitioner applied, therefore, to the Director of Settlements, asking to include the ryotwari demand on his lands in computing the basic annual sum, so that he could get proportionate compensation for his melwaram interest. This the Director of Settlements declined to do, and the Board of Revenue agreed with him. This petition is to quash their orders. In support of the petition, Mr. M. S. Venkatarama Iyer argued two points. One of them is that under section 35-A (2) it is only where a landholder as such is entitled to ryotwari patta, the ryotwari demand in respect of the holding would be liable to be excluded in the determination of the basic annual sum. The other is that if section 35-A (2) is construed in a manner that, even though the ryotwari demand pertained to lands for which the landholder obtained patta as a ryot under section 11, such demand was liable to be excluded, this amounted to deprivation of compensation which, by the decision of this Court in Marimuthu Pillai v. Krishna Joshi1, he would be entitled to then section 35-A (2) would be inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution and not protected by Article 31-A or 31-B and, therefore, void. It seems to me that it is unnecessary to deal with these points at any length in view of what the learned Advocate-General has stated on behalf of the State of Madras. In Vyravan Chettiar Chatram v. The Board of Revenue, Madras2 while considering the scope and effect of section 35-A , I expressed the view that ryotwari demand on land for which the landholder has been given a patta not as a landholder but as a ryot under section 11, is not liable to be excluded in the computation of the basic annual sum. No doubt the facts in that decision were different. There a Dharmilla inamdar owned ryoti lands in the major inam and in respect of such ryoti lands he had been granted a patta as a ryot under section 11. The Board of Revenue took the view that under section 35-A, the ryotwari demand on such land was liable to be excluded for purposes of determining the basic annual sum. There a Dharmilla inamdar owned ryoti lands in the major inam and in respect of such ryoti lands he had been granted a patta as a ryot under section 11. The Board of Revenue took the view that under section 35-A, the ryotwari demand on such land was liable to be excluded for purposes of determining the basic annual sum. This Court pointed out that the Board's view was not justified on the terms of section 35-A. But the principle of the decision in that case is that where the ryotwari demand pertained to lands for which ryotwari patta has been issued to a person not as a landholder but as a ryot under section 11 , such demand would be a component to be taken into account in the determination of the basic annual sum under section 31(1). In view of this principle laid down in that case learned Advocate-General states, I think rightly that this petition will have to be allowed. The petition is allowed and the orders of the Board of Revenue and of the Director of Settlements are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs. V.S.-----Petition allowed.