SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is by a widow of one m. A. Alwar who sought for being awarded compensation in regard to lands that belonged to her husband and had been leased out during his life time. The compensation became due following the vesting of the lands in Government under section 44 (1) of the Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter called as the Act ). In the usual course her husband would have been entitled to the compensation to be awarded for vestiture of the lands in Government. ( 2 ) AS the petitioner's husband Sri M. A. Alwar is now no more therefore it is the widow who moved the Tahsildar for being awarded compensation as enjoined under section 47 of the Act. The learned Tahsildar after an enquiry finds that apart from the widow there was no one interested in seeking compensation either as an intermediary or otherwise and therefore as the legal representative of late Alwar, the widow was entitled to the compensation awardable for the lands in question. That compensation the Tahsildar computed at Rs. 31,454-50 and directed payment of the same. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by that order the lady preferred a revision petition to the Divisional commissioner unsuccessfully. The learned divisional Commissioner by an order made on 19th July, 1983 had dismissed that revision petition. ( 4 ) BEFORE the Tahsildar and before the divisional Commissioner the petitioner's case was that she was eligible for being awarded compensation at 20 times' the value of the net annual income from the land, being a widow who was liable to be a given higher rate of compensation as enjoined by section 47 of the Act. The learned divisional Commissioner did not find any substance in that argument and rejected the same following Section 51 of the Land reforms Act. In that context he made the following observation:"it is not disputed that the lands became vested in the State Government on 1. 3. 1974 and the compensation become payable on that date. On the said date the husband of the petitioner was alive and would have in the normal course received the compensation but for his death. In fact had he been alive he would not have received the compensation in lumpsum but only Rs. 2,000/- in cash and the rest in bonds. 1974 and the compensation become payable on that date. On the said date the husband of the petitioner was alive and would have in the normal course received the compensation but for his death. In fact had he been alive he would not have received the compensation in lumpsum but only Rs. 2,000/- in cash and the rest in bonds. Since he is deceased his widow the Revision Petitioner has become entitled to receive this compensation in lumpsum under the Amended Section 51 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is clearly stated in the second proviso of the said section that "for the purpose of payment" widow includes a woman who is widow at the time when the amount payable is determined. The concession of the lumpsum payment of compensation is derived with the change of status and nothing more". ( 5 ) IN this writ petition the lady challenges the order of the Tahsildar as confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner and seeks for their quashing in solar as the computation of the amount is concerned. ( 6 ) MR. Krishna Bhat, Learned Counsel who appears in support of this writ petition contends that there is no room for any doubt about the entitlement of the widow who is a landlord for payment of compensation at 20 time the net annual income of the lands in question as enjoined by section 47 of the Act. In support he also relies on the explanation to proviso to Section 51 of the Act, which according to him throws some light on this controversy. But in my view Section 47 itself is clear. The relevant portion thereof is as follows :-SECTION 47 : x x x x x (iii) If the land vesting in the State government is D class land referred to in part A of Schedule I or if the landlord is - (1) a small holder; (2) a minor; (3) a widow; (4) a woman who has never been married; (5) a person who is subject to (such physical mental disability as may be prescribed); or (6) such soldier or seaman whose lands vest in the State Govt. under Section 44. An amount equal to twenty times the net annual income from such land shall be payable"39. In this connection it would be advantageous to refer also to the definition of a landlord under the Act. under Section 44. An amount equal to twenty times the net annual income from such land shall be payable"39. In this connection it would be advantageous to refer also to the definition of a landlord under the Act. Sub-Section (20) to Section 2 reads as follows :- 2 (20) : "landlord" means a person who has leased land to atenant and includes a person entitled to receive rent from a tenant". ( 7 ) THE order of the Tahsildar makes it clear that the deceased Alwar was survived only by his widow Smt. Janaki the petitioner herein and there was no one else who was eligible for recovering the compensation payable to persons whose lands had vested under Section 44 of the Act. Hence there cannot be any controversy about the petitioner being the only person now eligible to receive the compensation in question. There cannot also be any controversy about her status being that of a widow. If she is a widow then under proviso to section 47 she is the landlord of the lands for which compensation is to be awarded. Then clearly as the section provides she becomes eligible for payment of compensation at 20 times the annual net income from the lands. ( 8 ) IF we turn to the definition under section 2 (20) adverted to above the widow fits into the definition of a Landlord being a person who is entitled to receive the rents. The land admittedly belonged to her husband and admittedly he was the lessor of the lands. Upon his death the widow would have been entitled to recover rents from the lessee of the lands. It is in this context the learned Government Pleader sought to contend that on the death of the lessor the persons entitled to recover rents was the whole body of the legal representatives of the deceased such as his children and not merely his widow. There is no doubt there is some force in that submission, but then on the finding of the Tahsildar that barring this lady there was no other person who was interested in these lands. The clear inference is that after the death of the lessor she was the only person who became entitled to recover the rents payable by the lessee. Therefore, the Act constitutes her a landlord within the meaning of section 2 (20) of the act. The clear inference is that after the death of the lessor she was the only person who became entitled to recover the rents payable by the lessee. Therefore, the Act constitutes her a landlord within the meaning of section 2 (20) of the act. ( 9 ) THE position reached now is that the petitioner is the landlord within the meaning of the Act and therefore under the proviso to section 47 of the Act, she would be entitled to compensation computed at 20 times the income from the lands. The learned government Pleader says that the petitioner's husband being alive at the time the lands vested in the Government, the state of affairs must be reckoned on the basis of the husband's entitlement and not on the basis of the wife's entitlement following the death of the husband. Admittedly the computation of compensation was not done when the husband was alive. It was being done after his death and is paid to the person who is the landlord at the moment. This becomes clear by a reading of the explanation to Section 51 of the Act, which refers to persons in present as people eligible for receipt of compensation. It is incorrect to suggest that compensation payable in regard to lands that vested in the past, should be done on the basis of the state of affairs prevailing at the time of vesting. Subsequent events have got to be taken notice of and should be given effect to as on the date when the determination of compensation is being done under the law. I do not therefore find any substance in the argument of the learned government Pleader that we must reckon the compensation payable as on the date of vesting and not on the date of payment. What is important to reckonnis that although it may have fallen due upon the vesting of the land with the Government quantification is done subsequently and the criterion to be applied in regard to such quantification is as provided by the Act. If that is done, there can be no doubt that the petitioner became entitled to 20 times the net income of the lands in question and not at 15 times as awarded by the Tahsildar and the Divisional commissioner. ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter, this writ petition succeeds. If that is done, there can be no doubt that the petitioner became entitled to 20 times the net income of the lands in question and not at 15 times as awarded by the Tahsildar and the Divisional commissioner. ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter, this writ petition succeeds. The orders of the tahsildar as confirmed by the Divisional commissioner at Annexures-A and B are hereby quashed. The Tahsildar is directed to make a fresh computation of the compensation payable to the petitioner at 20 times the net annual income of the lands in question and ensure payment of the same at that rate. It is regrettable that a poor widow has been driven from pillar to post in her endeavour at recovering compensation that is justly due to her, the Tahsildar is directed to take expeditious steps in implementing the direction of this Court and see that the compensation as awarded is paid to the petitioner within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ( 11 ) SMT. Meena Ramachandran, learned high Court Government Pleader is permitted to file her memo of appearance on behalf of respondents within 3 weeks. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .