1. Dispute over grant of ryotwari patta under Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, involving cultivating tenants and a religious institution. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1978
1997(5) Supreme 151
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu -Appellant
versus
His Holiness Srilla Sri Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi Adheenakartha & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15523 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1795 of 1990)
with
Record of SLP 2786/89 for reference
Decided on 22-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V. Krishnamurthy, (V. Ramasubramaniam) Advocate for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondents : R. Sundervaradan, Sr. Advocate, S. Balakrishnan and Ms. Lily Thomas, Advocates.
Important Points
The Court ruled that tenants are entitled to ryotwari patta if the landholder converted the land into ryoti land through conduct, such as leasing. To qualify as 'private land,' the landholder must prove direct cultivation, ensuring socio-economic justice and economic empowerment for the tillers of the soil.
Subject
Land Ownership - Private Land
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.39(b), Art.136
TAMIL NADU INAM ACT: S.2(1)(3), S.9, S.2(1)(7)
TAMIL NADU INAM ESTATES ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI ACT: S.9
TAMIL NADU INAM ACT: S.2(1)(3), S.9, S.2(1)(7)
TAMIL NADU INAM ESTATES ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI ACT: S.9
Headnote
Constitution of India-Article 39(b)-Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963-Section 9-Grant of ryotwari patta under-Claim of-Existing estate-Cultivating tenants of lands-Land was notified and taken over under the Act-Whether tenants are ryots within the meaning of Section 3(15) ?-(Yes)-They are entitled to ryotwari patta-However, they should be burdened with liability to maintain Institution and the temple-1st respondent had purchased land for maintenance of Math as well as temple-Every tenant shall deliver, regularly, to 1st respondent every year, three quintals of paddy per acre.
Held that there is overwhelming evidence that the tenants have been cultivating the land and ever since they are in possession, though the first respondent had filed a suit against them for eviction and other reliefs. In those suits, it was admitted that they were cultivating the land as tenants and committed default in paying rent. On that admission, the necessary conclusion is that the first respondent has converted the lands by its conduct as a ryoti land and the tenants have Kudivaram rights and given the land on leasehold to the tenants and was collecting the rent from them. The tenants are the tillers of the soil and have fundamental right to economic empowerment under Article 39(b) which enjoins distribution of material resources to accord socio-economic justice and means for development for social status and dignity of person. Land is a source of livelihood. There is a strong linkage between the land and social status. The strip of the land on which the till and live assures them social justice and dignity of person providing near decent means of livelihood. So, economic empowerment is their fundamental right. They became the ryots and, ever since, remained in possession as ryots. Therefore, they are entitled to ryotwari patta. (Para 11)
Further held that the first respondent had purchased the land for the maintenance of the Math as well as the temple. Under these circumstances, it is necessary that the Institution and the temple are required to be maintained. Though the tenant/respondents are entitled to the ryotwari patta, they should be burdened with the liability to maintain the Institution and the temple. As a consequence, we direct that every tenant shall deliver, regularly, to the Adheenam, the first respondent, every year, three quintals of paddy per acre within fifteen days after the harvest. In the event of their committing default in delivery of the three quintals of paddy per acre, they are liable to and shall pay interest at the rate of 21% from the date of default till date of payment. In the event of their committing further default in making the payment with interest, if the Institution is driven to lay the suit for recovery of the same, they should also be liable to pay, apart from the costs to be incurred for the recovery of the said amount, exemplary costs for the institution of the suit for recovery of the amount. With these conditions, the respondent-tenants are entitled to grant of ryotwari patta under Section 9 of the Act . (Para 12)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State contends land is presumed ryoti land; religious institution argues land is private freehold land and cultivation test is dispensed for such institutions. (Para 4 )
3. Land is an existing estate; long-term cultivation by tenants and admission of tenancy in eviction suits indicate conversion of private land into ryoti land. (Para 6 , 9 , 11 )
4. Land is considered ryoti land if the landholder converts it by conduct, such as letting it out to tenants for cultivation and collecting rent. (Para 11 )
5. Appeal allowed; ryotwari patta granted to tenants subject to annual payment of paddy to the institution for its maintenance. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Can an appeal be entertained under Article 136 if the State did not appeal the original order of the Tribunal?
Yes, the Court has power under Article 136 of the Constitution to entertain an appeal even against the original order of the Tribunal, provided it was confirmed in the subsequent judgment. (Para 3 )
7. What is the legal presumption regarding land in an Inam village under the Estates Land Act and the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Act?
Under Section 185 of the Estates Land Act and Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Act, land is presumed to be ryoti land unless it is proved to be private land. (Para 7 )
8. What is the ordinary test to determine if land qualifies as private land?
The test is retention by the landholder for personal use and cultivation by the landholder or under their personal supervision, rather than merely owning both warms and letting the land out. (Para 10 )
9. How can private land be converted into ryoti land?
Private land can be converted into ryoti land by the conduct of the landholder, such as admitting that occupants are cultivating the land as tenants and collecting rent from them. (Para 11 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Special Tribunal of Madras in S.T. Appeal No. 8 of 1982, dated November 15, 1988, by two learned Judges of the Madras High Court under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 of 1963) (for short, the Act ). The admitted facts are that respondents 3 to 438 are the cultivating tenants of the lands in Kodarangulam village, which is an estate under the Act. It was admittedly notified and taken over under the Act; as a result, the respondents as well as the first respondent came to file application under Section 9 of the Act for issuance of ryotwari patta. The Tribunal granted patta to the first respondent and on special appeal, the High Court had confirmed the same. It would appear that some of the tenants had filed special leave petitions on earlier occasion also, but the same came to be summarily dismissed. The State has come up by special leave with permission against the judgment of the Special Tribunal. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. Shri R. Sunderavardan, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the State did not file any appeal against the order of the Tribunal and that, therefore, it cannot file appeal against the Special Tribunal s judgment. Though technically he is right, but this Court has power under Article 136 of the Constitution, even to entertain an appeal against the original order of the Tribunal, which stood confirmed in the judgment of the Special Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Permission was granted to file the special leave. Under these circumstances, we do not see any force in the contention on the maintainability of the appeal.
4. It is contended for the appellant-State that by operation of the definition of "private land" under Section 3(13) of the Act read with Section 3(1)(b) of the Estates Land Act, 1908 and in view of the presumptions drawn under Section 185 of the Estates Land Act and Section 65 of the Act, the land is presumed to be ryoti land and the tenant in occupation is a ryot unless the first respondent proves that it is a private land. The cultivation test is one of the important criteria, apart from other consideration, since the tenants have been in continuous possession for a long period. It must be presumed that the land is a ryoti land. As a consequence, the tenants are ryots. Accordingly, they are entitled to ryotwari patta under Section 9 of the Act. On the other hand, it is the contention of Shri Sunderavardan, learned senior counsel, that both Melwaram and Kudivaram rights have been retained by the first respondent. It has been asserting its own right as a full owner. It is a freehold land as confirmed in the Inams Fair Register maintained by the Inams Commissioner as early as in 1864. Consequently, it is a private land. It is not necessary that the first respondent, being a religious institution, should personally cultivate the land. By operation of the Amendment Act, 27 of 1966, the cultivation test, as regards religious institutions, has been dispensed with. Consequently, the ryotwari patta granted under Section 9 to the first respondent is valid in law. In view of the diverse contentions, the question that arises for consideration is; whether the respondent-tenants are entitled to ryotwari patta or the ryotwari patta granted to the first respondent is in accordance with law ? With a view to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to look into certain definitions under the Act. Section 3(7) defines "inam estate" to mean "an existing inam estate or a new inam estate".
"Section 3(13) defines "private land" thus :
"(i) in relation to an existing inam estate shall have the same meaning as in sub-clause (b) of clause (10) of Section 3 of the Estates Land Act; and
(ii) in relation to a new inam estate shall
