V.R.KRISHNA IYER, J.

(1) THREE Civil, stemming from three revision petitions to the High court of orissa under the orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (orissa Act 1 of 1952) (for short, the Act) have reached this court, thanks to special leave granted to the appellant, who is common in all the cases. The High court, after deciding various issues, remanded the cases to the Compensation Officer under the Act, after overruling most of the contentions pressed before it by the appellant.

(2) SHRI Achutananda Purohit, appellant, was the intermediary in respect of vast forests and other lands comprised in the estate of Jujumura in the district of Sambalpur. This estate vested in the State on April 1. 1960 by force of the Act and the crucial question agitated before us, consequentially, turns on the quantum of compensation awardable under Ch. V of the Act. The appellant has received around Rs. 3,00,000.00 but much more, according to him, is due and this controversy can be settled by examining his specific points.

(3) SHRI Purohit, appellant, is an advocate by profession and is 83 years old. He has argued in person and with passion. We have listened with patience to all his submissions, good, bad and indifferent. If we may anticipate ourselves, none of the nine submissions has appealed to us, save to the extent the High court has upheld. Even so, a minimal narration of the facts and a brief consideration of each argument is necessary and we proceed to do so. While his arguments did not impress us, we were touched by his concluding words that he had been born and had grown in an adivasi village, in the only brahmin family and, in his evening years of life, proposed to give a substantial part of the compensation the State would give him for adivasi welfare. Although he waxed sentimentally on this note, he did not convince us on his contentions. With these prefatory observations, we proceed to formulate the many points urged and give our findings and reasons, one after the other.

(4) WE are directly concerned with the issue of compensation which is dealt with, as earlier stated, in Ch. V of the Act. The Compensation Officer is charged with fixing the quantum in the prescribed manner. A compensation assessment roll containing the gross asset and net income of each estate, together with the compensation payable in respect of such estate, has to be prepared by him. Of course, when there is joint ownership, S. 24 stipulates that the compensation shall be determined for the estate as a whole and not separately for each of the shares therein. S. 26 has great relevance as it lays down the method of arriving at the gross asset and S. 27 has like significance as it focuses on the manner in which the net income from an estate shall be computed by deducting certain items from the gross asset of the estate. S. 28 states how the amount of compensation is to be determined and the methodology of payment. There are a few other S. in Ch. VI which deal with payment of compensation. The Act also provides for appeal, second appeal and revision, the last being to the High court and the earlier ones being to the Collector and a Board constituted under S. 22. The rule-making power is vested in the government under S. 47 and there is a routine removal of difficulties clause contained in S. 50. These furnish in bare outline the provisions with which we are directly concerned.

(5) AGAINST the background of law just projected, we may set out Shri Purohits points which, if we may say so. are substantially the same as have been argued by him in revision before the High court with partial success. For convenience of reference, we may extract the statement by the High court of the contentions urged before it (and repeated before us) by the appellant :

(1) The provisions of S. 37(3) read with S. 26(2)(b)(v) of the Act make it clear that the date of vesting is the !ast date by which the calculation of compensation shou