Judgment :- 1. The only question that arises in these two writ petitions which have been filed to quash the orders of two Land Tribunals passed under S.72F of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is what is the compensation that a Kanam tenant is entitled to get for his right, title and interest in a property which vests in the Government under S.72F of the Act. 2. The compensation payable to every land owner and intermediary whose right, title and interest in respect of a holding have vested in the Government under S.72 of the Act is provided in S.72A. S.72B confers the right on the cultivating tenant of such a holding to purchase the right, title and interest of the landowner and intermediaries, if any, in the said holding, and provides for making an application for that purpose to the Land Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the holding is situate. S.72D provides for determination of the price payable by the cultivating tenant for such purchase. S.72F deals with the procedure for determination of the compensation payable under S.72A by the Government to the landowner and intermediaries, if any, and the purchase price payable under S.72D by the cultivating tenant to the Government. Subject to certain limitations regarding the quantum of total compensation when it exceeds Rs 20,000/- which is specifically provided in Sub-s. (3) of S.72A, the amount of compensation payable by the Government to the landowner and intermediaries, if any, is the same as the purchase price payable by the cultivating tenant to the Government. li is enough to read Sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.72A, for the purpose of getting at the controversy in these matters. 72A. Compensation to landlords for vesting of their rights in Government. li is enough to read Sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.72A, for the purpose of getting at the controversy in these matters. 72A. Compensation to landlords for vesting of their rights in Government. (I) Every landowner and intermediary whose right, title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government under S.72 shall be entitled to compensation as provided in sub-ssctions- (2), (3) and (4), (2) The compensation payable to the landowner and intermediaries under sub-s. (1) shall be the aggregate of (a) sixteen times the fair rent of the holding or part thereof, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government; (b) the value of structures, wells and embankments of a permanent nature belonging to the landowner and the intermediaries, if any; and (c) one-half of the value of timber trees belonging to the landowner and the intermediaries, if any: Provided that where the aggregate of the value of structures, wells and embankments and one-half of the value of the timber trees referred to in clauses (b) and (c) exceeds sixteen times the fair rent in respect of the holding or part thereof, as the case may be, such aggregate value shall, for the purpose of calculating the compensation under this subsection, be limited to sixteen times such fair rent. Explanation J. For the purposes of this section and S.72D, "fair rent" means the fair rent under this Act as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. Explanation II. For the purposes of this section, where the rant is payable in kind the money value of the rent shall be commuted at the average of the prices of the commodity for the six years immediately preceding the year in which the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries have vested is the Government, and in calculating, the average of the prices, the prices, if any, published under S.43 may also be taken into account." 3. The holdings concerned in the present cases are paddy fields held under kanam tenants as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955, in respect of which the rents payable by the cultivating tenants are fixed under contracts entered into between them and their respective landlords. There are no intermediaries, and there are no improvements or trees. So clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-s. (2) of S.72 A have no application. There are no intermediaries, and there are no improvements or trees. So clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-s. (2) of S.72 A have no application. The compensation has to be fixed under clause (a); and the whole of it has to be paid to the landowner. Under clause (a), the compensation is sixteen times the fair rent. The term "landowner"' is defined in S.2(3) of the Act as follows: "Landowner" means the owner of the land comprised in a holding and includes (i) a landholder holding Sree Pandaravaka lands on pattom, otti, jenmam, kudijenmum, danam or any other tenure; and (ii) a landholder holding Sreepadam lands on Sreepadam pattom or other favourable tenure;" The above definition takes me to the definition of the term "owner", which is defined in S.2(40). That definition reads, "Owner" means a person entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land and includes (a) "a trustee in respect thereof; (b) a pattadar of ryotwari land; (c) a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955, but does not include a jenmi as defined in that Act;" From the above definitions, it is clear that a kanam tenant is an owner, and that he would be the "landowner" in respect of a land owned by him as kanam tenant. Hence the whole compensation payable in respect of such a land is payable to the kanam tenant as landowner. So far, the parties are agreed. The controversy arises only regarding the fixation of fair rent. . 4. "Fair rent" is defined in S.2(13) as the rent payable by a cultivating tenant under S.27 or S.33. The latter section has admittedly no application. The fair rent will, therefore, be what is payable under S.27. Sub-s. (1) and clause (a) of Sub-s. (2) alone of that section are relevant; and they read: "27. Fair rent: (1) The fair rent in respect of a holding shall be the rent payable by the cultivating tenant to his landlord. The latter section has admittedly no application. The fair rent will, therefore, be what is payable under S.27. Sub-s. (1) and clause (a) of Sub-s. (2) alone of that section are relevant; and they read: "27. Fair rent: (1) The fair rent in respect of a holding shall be the rent payable by the cultivating tenant to his landlord. (2) The fair rent shall be, (a) in the case of nilams, 50 per cent of the contract rent, or 75 per cent of the fair rent determined under any law in force immediately before the 21st January, 1961, or the rent calculated at the rates specified in Schedule III applicable to the class of lands comprised in the holding, whichever is less;" The parties are also agreed that the fair rents in both these cases may be fixed at 50% of the contract rent; and the only bone of controversy is what is the contract rent in the case of a holding under a kanam tenant. The lease deeds concerned have not been produced in court; and it is admitted that they are of the ordinary kind, wherein the cultivating tenant agrees to pay a certain amount to the kanam tenant as rent. The kanam tenant was liable to pay michavaram and other dues to the jenmi as fixed in the contract of tenancy between them. By S.3 of the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955, the kanam tenant has been made the owner of the land; and the liability to pay michavaram and other dues has been substituted by the liability to pay jenmikaram as defined in that Act. The kanam tenant is also liable to pay the land tax and all other local taxes in respect of the land. The jenmikaram and all the taxes are charges on the land Naturally, a kanam tenant would take into account all these liabilities, when fixing the rent in the contract of tenancy between him and the cultivating tenant. The cultivating tenant is also entitled to discharge these liabilities, since they are charged on the property, in respect of which he has substantial interest as a tenant entitled to fixity. What is stated above is the inter se relation between the jenmi, the kanam tenant, and the cultivating tenant. The cultivating tenant is also entitled to discharge these liabilities, since they are charged on the property, in respect of which he has substantial interest as a tenant entitled to fixity. What is stated above is the inter se relation between the jenmi, the kanam tenant, and the cultivating tenant. According to the cultivating tenant, the contract rent in such a case is the rent fixed in the contract of tenancy less the michavaram or jenmikaram, as the case may be, since the latter is a liability charged on the land and payable to the jenmi. The Land Tribunals concerned accepted this contention, and fixed the fair rent and the amounts of compensation payable to the petitioners on that basis. 5. According to the petitioners the contract rent is the rent fixed in the contract as payable by the cultivating tenant to the kanam tenant. In support of that contention, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the kanam tenant is liable to pay the michavaram or jenmikaram, irrespective of the question whether he has received the rent from the cultivating tenant or not, that it is not a liability to be paid or discharged out of the rent received, and that the jenmi or bis right, if any, in respect of the property does not come into the picture in determining what is the rent under the contract between the kanam tenant and the cultivating tenant. The term contract rent is a common expression; and its meaning is clear and well-known. It means the rent fixed under the contract of tenancy payable by the tenant to the landlord. There is no scope for any interpretation when the meaning of a term or a provision contained in a statute is clear. The court must give effect to the plain meaning. This is an elementary rule of interpretation of statutes. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in their contention. 6. It has been strenuously argued by Shri. M. P. Menon, counsel appearing for some of the respondents that such a construction of the above provision would result in inequities, that it would also render the provisions relating to fixation of compensation unconstitutional, since it would violate the principle of equality guaranteed under Art.14 of the Constitution, and that I should, therefore, strain the meaning of the term "contract rent" and construe it as the Land Tribunals did. He brought to my notice that the position of a kanam tenant in the erstwhile Cochin State is quite peculiar and anomalous in that he is deemed the owner of the land and at the same time, he has to pay jenmikaram to jenmi, while the position is entirely different in the erstwhile Travancore and the Malabar District. In Travancore, the position was formerly similar to that in Cochin State; but by the enactment of the Jenmikaram Payment (Abolition) Act, 1960, jenmikaram was abolished on payment of compensation to all jenmis; and thereafter jenmis and kanam tenants ceased to exist, and kanam tenants became owners of the land without any liability to pay anything to the jenmi. In Malabar under the Malabar Tenancy Act, the Jenmi is the land-owner, and the kanam tenant, if he is not holding the land himself, is an intermediary. So, both in the Travancore and Malabar areas, what vests in the Government under S.72 and what a cultivating tenant purchases under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in the case of a land held under a kanam tenant is the absolute ownership in respect of that land, while in the Cochin area, it is the ownership subject to the liability to pay jenmikaram. Counsel submitted that if the term "contract rent" used in S, 27(2) (a) of the Act is interpreted literally, and such an interpretation is applied in fixing the compensation under S.72B, the Cochin cultivating tenant, who holds under a kanam tenant, would have to pay compensation on the same basis as in the case of the Travancore and Malabar cultivating tenants, and he would also be subject to a further liability to pay the jenmikaram which is a charge on the holding, S.72R of the Act also expressly provides that the cultivating tenant shall be liable to pay the jenmikaram. It is true that such an interpretation would cause injustice and inequality. 7. Under S.27 (2), the fair rent is fixed on the basis of the contract rent or at the rates specified in Schedule III of the Act. In Schedule III, the rates are fixed on the basis of gross produce. Ordinarily, the contract rent is also fixed having due regard to the gross produce. So the statutory provision for fixation of fair rent is linked to the gross produce; and that is how it should properly be. In Schedule III, the rates are fixed on the basis of gross produce. Ordinarily, the contract rent is also fixed having due regard to the gross produce. So the statutory provision for fixation of fair rent is linked to the gross produce; and that is how it should properly be. The fair rent has thus no relation to the jenmikaram payable by the kanam tenant. The quantum of the michavaram or the jenmikaram payable by a kanam tenant depends on the quantum of the kanam amount; and in a case where the kanam amount is quite normal, the michavaram or jenmikaram payable by the kanam tenant would be very high and almost equal to the normal rent. So, if we take the case of a land held by a cultivating tenant on a contract rent of Rs. 100/-, its fair rent would be Rs. 50/-; and the price payable by him for purchasing the right, title and interest of the landowner would be Rs. 800/-. In such a case, if the landowner is a pattadar, the cultivating tenant gets the land without any liability. If the landowner is a kanam tenant, he has to pay the jenmikaram to the jenmi of the land. If the jenmikaram was Rs 80/-he has to pay Rs. 40/- per year; and if it was Rs. 40/- he has to. pay Rs. 20/-per year. This situation creates a patently discriminatory treatment. There is also a further inequity. In the case where the jenmikaram is Rs. 80/- the cultivating tenant has to pay Rs. 800/-for the purchase of the right, title and interest of the kanam tenant, and then continue to pay Rs. 40/-per year as jenmikaram, instead of Rs. 50/-as fair rent. In other words, by paying Rs. 800/- he gets only a reduction of Rs. 10/- per year in his liability to pay the rent. S.72C of the Act creates a statutory obligation to accept such an assignment. It would, therefore, be an irony that a statute avowedly intended for the benefit of cultivating tenants would create under certain circumstances unconscionable burden on them. Such a provision cannot be constitutionally sustained, but for the fact that the Act has been included in Schedule IX of the Constitution. I have no doubt that such a result was never intended by the Legislature. Such a provision cannot be constitutionally sustained, but for the fact that the Act has been included in Schedule IX of the Constitution. I have no doubt that such a result was never intended by the Legislature. But the court cannot rewrite the provisions of the Statute or amend the law for the purpose of bringing it into accord with justice and equity or to avoid hardship and injustice. It can only interpret the law in such a way as to achieve the above objects. But if the language of a provision of a Statute is clear, there is no scope for any interpretation; the court is bound to give effect to its plain meaning; and it may point out the difficulty so that the Legislature may take such action as it may deem proper to rectify the matter. This is a typical instance of that kind. 8. Shri M. P. Menon further contended that the liability to pay jenmikaram is an encumbrance on the right, title and interest of the landowner, that under Sub-section (4) of S.72G of the Act, the value of the said encumbrance has to be deducted from the compensation payable to the landowner, and that, under Sub-section (7) of the said section, the amount so deducted has to be paid to the holder of the said encumbrance, namely the jenmi in discharge of his claim to get jenmikaram. Under S.5 of the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955, jenmikaram due in respect of a land is a first charge on the holding. Therefore, the argument would at first sight look plausible. But it cannot stand on a close scrutiny, particularly in the light of certain provisions in the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is only jenmikaram that has become due or fallen into arrear that is made a charge on the holding. So if, at the time of the vesting, there is any amount due to the jenmi as arrear of jenmikaram, to that extent, it is an encumbrance; and that amount has to be deducted from the compensation and paid to the jenmi. What is vested in the Government under S.72 of the Act and what the cultivating tenant purchases in the case of a land held under a kanam tenant is only his right, title and interest therein. What is vested in the Government under S.72 of the Act and what the cultivating tenant purchases in the case of a land held under a kanam tenant is only his right, title and interest therein. And what the kanam tenant has got is only the absolute right in the property less the jenmi's right to get jenmikaram, or which may be called the kanam right. The liability to pay jenmikaram is not an encumbrance on the kanam right, though the kanam right would be a first charge for arrear of jenmikaram. To illustrate the point, when a lessor conveys his leasehold right in respect of a property it cannot be said that the liability to pay rent is an encumbrance on the property, since it is not a liability in respect of the leasehold right; but it is a paramount charge, subject to which alone the right exists. It is something like the liability to pay land tax, which is a first charge on the land. All the same, it is not an encumbrance, since the right dealt with is something less than that paramount right. There is also no provision in the Act to fix the value of the jeamikaram liability, and pay the same to the jenmi. On the other hand, the jenmi is entitled to get the jenmikaram; and S.72R makes it a liability of the cultivating tenant from the date the kanam tenant's right is vested in the Government. In other words, the jenmikaram continues as a paramount charge in respect of the holding unaffected by any of the provisions of the Act. 9. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of these writ petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution towards the end of the hearing to the effect that the impugned orders are appealable under S.102 of the Land Reforms Act, and that, in view of such a a clear statutory remedy, Art.226 should not be invoked. Apart from the fact, that this objection was not raised at the proper stage, the question arising for decision is one of considerable importance involving the interpretation of statutory provisions. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to leave it to the authorities under the Act to decide it. Apart from the fact, that this objection was not raised at the proper stage, the question arising for decision is one of considerable importance involving the interpretation of statutory provisions. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to leave it to the authorities under the Act to decide it. Further, it is also possible to construe the impugned orders as vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record in so far as the Land Tribunals held that the contract rent is not the amount which the cultivating tenant has contracted to pay to the kanam tenant, but it is something less than that, namely the rent contracted to be paid less the jenmikaram which the kanam tenant has to pay to the jenmi. This is a finding opposed to the plain terms of the contract, and also one not warranted by the language of the relevant provisions of the Act. I, therefore, decline to entertain the above objection. 10. For the reasons stated above, I quash the orders of the Tribunals concerned, which are marked as Ext. P-1 in both the cases. The Tribunals are directed to take up the applications to their files and dispose of them afresh according to law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment It is also made clear that, if the cultivating tenants are so advised, they can adopt the second method of fixing the fair rent at the rates specified in Schedule III of the Act. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.