9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct No. 30 of 1963 and it is held to be valid also by the Settlement Officer, S.R. II, Thanjavur. 2. The short facts are that the respondents filed a petition under Section 5 of the Madras Inams (Supplementary) Act (XXXI of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 31 of 1963') for a declaration that the said two distinct areas of lands in Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai Village, of Papanasam Taluk form a new inam estate falling under Act No, 26 of 1963. The notification issued by the Government of India under Act No. 30 of 1963 is illegal, liable to be quashed as the original grant of the disputed areas was not made in terms of acreages or cawnies hence would only constitute to be a part of inam estate in view of Section 2(11) of the Act No. 26 of 1963. The Settlement Officer after hearing parties, including the State, held that the Madras High Court in Karumbavira Vanniar and Ors. v. Govindaswami Vanniar and Ors. ' (1977) Madras Law Weekly, 741, held that Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai is not 'estate1 within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, It further recorded that evidence shows that in 1829 there were two areas, namely, Mela Thatt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the two padugais are not given. It is also relevant to quote the following observations made in Karumbavira Vanniar (Supra), as the said observations have also been referred and relied by the Tribunal. This was because both the parties relied on it for gathering facts, in the absence of proper evidence in the present case. This reliance was, as it also pertains to the same estate of Raja of Thanjavur with reference to this land itself which is in dispute though was not between the same party with a different question raised. The observations are: It is in evidence that as early as the year 1829 there were two areas, Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai, the former formed .part of Rajagiri Village and the latter of papanasam Village. Evidently, both these portions, although there was no geographical contiguity, were designated as Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai at the time when the East India Co. took over the village and later granted it to the heirs of the last of Rajahs of Tanjore....It will be plain from what we have stated above, that both before and immediately after the grant of the year 1862, the two parts of the present Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai were attac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the area of the aforesaid two Mela and Kizha was described in an acreage etc. reliance was placed for the appellant on the following observations in Karumbavira Vanniar (Supra); This position is made clear from the paimash accounts and the subsequent surveys. Mala Thattimal, which till 1919 formed part of Rajagiri village, covered as we said an extent of 26-21 acres. In the Paimash accounts of the year 1829 the area was designated by Nos. 1272 to 1302. In the survey of the year 1886 the area was represented fay S.No. 11 of Rajagiri. In the land register of the year 1919, the area was given Nos. 45 to 49 in the newly formed No. 5, Aryapuram Thattimal PadugaL... Now, coming to Kizha Thattimal, which covered on area of 267-44 acres they were represented Nos. 335 to 614 in the Paimash account of the Taraf Village of Papanasam. In the survey of 1886 the corresponding numbers were S.Nos. 1 to 10 in No. 2, Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai . The position continued to be the same in the survey of 1921. But in the Record of Rights Register, they have been given S.Nos. 1 to 56 in No. 5, Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai. 6. The reference of the acreage therein was relied. The High Court rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice, etc. This practice was followed by the Muhammadan rulers and by British administrators until about a century ago. According to the ancient Hindu Law, there were two beneficial interests in land, namely (1) that of the sovereign or his representative, and (2) that of the cultivator holding the land. The sovereign's right to collect a share of the produce of the cultivated land was known by the name 'melvaram1, the share of the ryot or cultivator was known by the name 'kudivaram'. The ryot's right arose from occupation of the land. Thus, the grant of an inam did not touch, and could not have touched, the cultivator's right in the land, namely, the kudivaram, except in rare cases where the grantor was also holding the cultivator's interest at the time of the grant. 8. It is also relevant to refer to Madras Inams Act, 1869 (Madras Act VIII of 1869). This Act declares that the enfranchisement of an inam and the grant of a title deed to the inamdar should not be deemed to define, limit, infringe the right of any description of holder or occupier of the land from which the inam was derived. Thus, the right of an inamdar does not ordinarily extend to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghts; he is secured in the occupancy of his holding from which he cannot be ejected so long as he pays his khist; nor can his khist be enhanced except by suit before the Collector; and he is given the right to have the irrigation of his fields secured; Looking at both sides it must be admitted that the Government has, as far as it lay in its power, discharged with equal justice its obligations to safeguard the established rights of both zamindars and ryots, in the sense of the old Regulation IV of 1822. The intervention of the Government is thus as much to the benefit of the landholders as of the ryot. All that is done for the ryot is to protect him against the horrors or arbitrary eviction, against the oppression of rack rents and to secure to him his right to enjoy his established share of the produce, conditions which are essential to the stability of an agricultural community and the undoubted and ancient right of the Madras ryot. The aforesaid observations by Hon. Mr. Forbes gives clear indication of the objects and reasons for introducing the 1908 Act. It is interesting to see how even at that time the exploitations by the haves for commercial and selfish ends down r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6). Sub-section (7) defines 'inam estate' means an existing inam estate or a new inam estate. Sub-section (9) defines 'new inam estate' means a 'part village inam estate' or a Pudukkottai inam estate. Sub-section (11) of Section 2 defines 'part village inam estate', which is quoted hereunder; (11) 'part village inam estate' means a part of a village (including a part of a village in the merged territory of Pudukkotiai) the grant of which part has been made, confirmed or recognised by the Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, such part has been partitioned among the grantees or the successors-in-title of the grantee or grantees. Explanation 1. - (a) Where the grant of a part of a village as an inam is expressed to be a specified fraction of, or a specified number of shares in, a village, such part shall be deemed to be a part village inam estate notwithstanding that such grant refers also to the extent of such part in terms of acreage or cawnies, or of other local equivalent. (b) Where a grant as in inam is expressed to be only in terms of acreage or cawnies, or of other local equivalent, the area which forms the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(11). All those inams which related to a part of a village of with reference to specified extent of land, in my opinion, would be covered by the definition of minor inam in Madras ACT XXX of 1963 and it would not be a part village inam estate under Section 2(11). I am therefore of the opinion that Marasandram village is also not a 'part village inam estate'. The result of it is the notification of the village under Madras Act XXVI of 1963 was not valid and is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. This case records in order to come within the definition of an inam estate three essential conditions have to be satisfied, namely (i) the grant should be of both the warams or of melwaram to a person already owning the Kudivaram thereof; (ii) it should be of the whole village or named village and (iii) the grant should be made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government. There the question was whether Marasandram village could be said to be a confirmation of grant of a whole village? The Court records: Where the grants of two minor inams and portion or the village remaining thereafter were confirmed by the Inams Commissioner separately and three se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' as referred , in the main part of the definition of 'part village inam estate' in Sub-section (11) of Section 2 of Act No. 26 of 1963 with reference to various dictionaries. It recorded that the word 'part' is not a word of art or a technical term conveying a special meaning. It records: There is nothing in the scheme of the Tamil Nadu ACT XXVI of 1963 '. or in the context of the definition of the term 'part village inam estate' justifying giving to the expression 'part' occurring therein a meaning other than the dictionary meaning referred to above. There is nothing in the scheme of the Act No. 26 of 1963 or in the context of definition of the term 'part village inam estate'justifying to the expression 'part1 occurring therein meaning other than the dictionary meaning referred to above. Significantly, the Full Bench with reference to Explanation 1(b) of the aforesaid Section recorded the findings as: The very deeming provision will make it clear that but for this explanation, the grant would fall within the scope of the definition itself. Therefore, if Explanation 1(b) had not been there, even where the grant, as an in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... village and (ii) for the part of the village. In spite of this some of the inams contested not to fall under either of the two, for which disputes were raised in courts in large numbers which lead to bringing in the said two enactments in 1963 by giving it more precise meaning. This is sought to be achieved through definitions in Section 2 of Act No. 26 of 1963 of'existing inam estate', i.e. 'inam estate1 and 'new inam estate' and 'part village inam estate' to make the law and the subject clear. The 'existing inam estate' are inam villages which are estate as recognised through the aforesaid Third Amendment Act XVIII of 1936. It is what is said to be not covered under it is brought in under the said 1963 Act within its definition 'new inam estate' to mean part village inam estate. Thus inam estate 'under this Act included both the existing inam estate and new inam estate1. As 'new inam estate' referred to mean 'a part village inam estate' or 'a Pudukkottai inam estate', the part village inam estate itself is defined under Sub-clause (11) of Section 2, which is subject to scrutiny in the present case. This Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce led and the collateral evidence gathered from the aforesaid decision, could be it said, on the facts of this case that the grant as an inam of the disputed area was expressed only in terms of acreages or cawnies or other local equivalent. 18. Before we proceed to refer to the judgment in Karumbavira Vanniar (Supra), we herewith give short facts as recorded in the same judgment in respect of the estate of Raja of Tanjore. In the year 1799 Raja of Tanjor ceded its entire raj and reserved for himself the fort of Tanjor and about 190 villages which formed part of his private property. The last of the Rajas died in 1855. The East India Company then took over the aforesaid both the sets of properties. The heirs of Raja contested the right of the Company though were successful in the Supreme Court at Madras, but the Privy Council held that the validity of the confiscation could not be challenged in the Municipal Court. Thereafter on account of certain influential persons the British Government, as an act of grace granting 190 villages to the Raja's widow and they were compendiously referred to as Tanjore Palace Estate. Thereafter a full Bench decision in Sundaram Ayyar v. Ramac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iri. - In the Land Register of the year 1919 the area was given Nos. 45 to 49 in the newly formed No. 5 Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai. Under the Record of Rights Register, the corresponding numbers were S. Nos. 57 to 62. Now coming to Kizha Thattimal, which covered an area of 267-44 acres, they were represented Nos, 335 to 614 in the Paimash account of the Taraf village of Papanasam. We fail to see how this portion helps the appellants. This portion refers only to Paimash account and subsequent survey of Mela, it records till 1919 it formed part of Rajagiri village. It no doubt records its extent to be of 26.21 acres. The question is as to when this area was measured, that is not recorded in the above passage. The said judgment does not reveal, whether the 'Paimash account and subsequent surveys referred to therein were of 1862 the year of grant. Unless the reference of the document first is established to be of the year of grant or refers to a fact as existed in the year of grant and that documents refer to the acreages, no inference in favour of the appellants could be drawn. The reference of paimash account or the subsequent survey referred does not indicate it to be of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court was in error in holding that this land is a part of an inam village, and has been so ever since 1862. It is significant that the case of Karumbavira Vanniar (Supra) records that in the year 1929 there were two areas, namely, Mela and Kizha the former formed part of Rajagiri village later of Papanasam village. The question raised there and which was considered was, whether Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai was an inam estate within the meaning of estate under Section 3(2)(d) of 1908 Act, further whether it was of entire village or was it merely of two parts of two different villages. It is in this context, the Court finally held the grant was of two separate bits of land lying in two different Taraft villages and that it was only in the year 1919 that they were amalgamated to from what is now known as No. 5 Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai village. Hence, the two different bits were held not an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2)(d) of the 1908 Act. The finding recorded thus is that the area Mela and Kizha were parts of the village Rajagiri and Papanasam, respectively and once they are part of the village it would be covered within the definition of Section 2(11) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
