9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Shrotriem village is an "estate" within the Rent Reduction Act. 2. Whether the Shrotriem village is an "inam estate" under the Abolition Act. 3. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to determine the status of the Shrotriem village as an "inam estate." Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Shrotriem village is an "estate" within the Rent Reduction Act: The court first examined whether the Shrotriem village falls within the definition of an "estate" under the Rent Reduction Act. The preamble of the Rent Reduction Act and Section 1(2) of the Act make it applicable to all "estates" as defined in Section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The definition under Section 3(2) includes various types of tenures, notably "any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognized by the Government." The court scrutinized the entries in the Inam Fair Register, which indicated that the entire extent of the village, including dry lands and Poramboke, was granted to the Shrotriemdar. The court rejected the appellant's contentions that the grant was not of a named village and that certain lands were reserved by the grantor. It concluded that the entire village was granted as a Shrotriem, including minor inams that predated the Shrotriem grant. Therefore, the Shrotriem village was an "estate" under the Rent Reduction Act, validating the government's notification. 2. Whether the Shrotriem village is an "inam estate" under the Abolition Act: The court then addressed whether the Shrotriem village is an "inam estate" under the Abolition Act. The Settlement Officer had determined that the Shrotriem was an "inam estate," a decision upheld by the Tribunal. The appellant challenged this determination on two grounds: (a) the original grant was of both warams (full ownership) and not just the melvaram (land revenue), making it not an "estate" under the pre-1936 definition, and (b) the Tribunal's decision was invalid as it was made by only two members instead of the required three. The court agreed that the Tribunal's decision was invalid but held that this did not nullify the Settlement Officer's decision, leaving the appeal pending before the Tribunal. The court found that the jurisdiction to determine whether the Shrotriem was an "inam estate" rested exclusively with the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal, thus barring the Civil Courts from deciding this issue. 3. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to determine the status of the Shrotriem village as an "inam estate": The court examined whether the Civil Courts had jurisdiction to decide if the Shrotriem was an "inam estate." Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code presumes against the ouster of Civil Court jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly barred. The Abolition Act, particularly Section 9, provides a detailed mechanism for determining whether a village is an "inam estate," including an inquiry by the Settlement Officer, an appeal to a Tribunal, and finality to the Tribunal's decision. The court held that the combined effect of these provisions impliedly barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. However, it noted two exceptions: (a) non-compliance with fundamental provisions of the statute or violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure, and (b) the determination of preliminary facts that confer jurisdiction on the statutory tribunal. In this case, the preliminary condition that the property was an "inam village" was satisfied, making the Settlement Officer's determination that it was an "inam estate" binding and exclusive. Conclusion: The court upheld the validity of the government's notification under the Rent Reduction Act and confirmed that the Shrotriem village was an "estate" within its scope. It also affirmed that the determination of the Shrotriem as an "inam estate" under the Abolition Act was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal, barring Civil Courts from deciding the issue. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
