1955 Supreme(SC) 85

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st October, 1955
BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR AND SINHA, JJ.
The State of Madras and another, Appellants
Versus
V. Srinivasa Ayyangar, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 219 of 1954.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyar and Mr. P. G. Gokhale, Advocates with him), for Appellants; Mr. R. Kesava Iyengar, Sr. Advocate (Mr. M. S. K. Iyengar, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.

Headnote: Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, Section 3(b)-Darmila or post-settlement inams-Rights of holders of-Minor darmila inams-Applicability of the Act to-Minor darmila inamdars-Compensation.

       1n 1757 Rajah of Ramnathapuram made a grant of the whole of the village of Karuppur to a number of persons for various charitable purposes. In 1802, the estate was permanently settled, and an instimrari sanad was issued in favour of the Rajah. Before that date the donees representing an one-sixteenth share had abandoned the village, and in consequence the inam had eo extanti been resumed. At the permanent settlement, this one-sixteenth part was included in the assets of the Zamindari and taken into account in fixing the peishkush thereon. Subsequent to the permanent settlement, Rani Mangaleswari, the then holder of the Zamindari made a fresh grant of the one-sixteenth part which had been resumed, to the inamdars who held the remaining 15/16th portion of the village under the grant of 1757.

       On 31-12-1863 the Inam Commissioner confirmed the grant of 1757, and issued an inam certificate in respect of the 15/16th portion of the village. The position, therefore, when the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 was passed was that while a 15/16th portion was held by the inamdars under a pre-settlement grant confirmed by the British Government, the remaining one-sixteenth portion was held under post-settlement grant made by the proprietor of the estate. The Act came into force on 19-4-1949 and in exercise of the powers under S. 1(4) of the Act the appellant issued a notification on 27-8-1949 bringing the Act into force as regards the Ramnathapuram estate from 7-9-1949. Among the village mentioned as comprised in the Zamindari was "Karuppur (part)" described as an under-tenure, which meant the one-sixteenth part which formed the

       subject-matter of the appeal.

       The respondent who represented the holders of the inam filed an application for a writ of certiorari quashing the notification, dated 22-8-1949 as ultra vires on the ground that the part of the village of Karuppur included in the notification was not an "estate" within the meaning of S. 3(2) of the Act. His contention was that as the grant in question related only to a fraction of a village, it could not be notified as an under-tenure, as under S. 3(2)(e) an under-tenure would be an estate only if it related to a whole village or villages.

       The appellant conceded that the inam in question was not an under-tenure as defined in S. 3(2) (e), as it comprised only part of a village, but contended that even though it was not in itself an estate, it was, nevertheless, part of the Zamindari of Ramnathapuram, being it post-settlement grant of portion of a village comprised therein and that when that estate was notified, the entirety of it including the inam in question must vest in the Government under S. 3(b) of the Act. The respondent demurred to this contention. In addition, he raised the further contention that even if post-settlement minor inams were within the operation of the Act, they would be protected by S. 20 of the Act.

       The High Court agreed with the appellant that post- settlement minor inams fell within the operation of the Act; but the contention of the respondent that they were governed by section 20 of the Act was accepted. As it was common ground that the State had not proceeded under that section, they held that the notification was ultra vires, and accordingly quashed the same in so far as it related to the inam forming part of the Karuppur village.

       Held: (allowing the appear) : (1) It was settled law in Madras at the time when Act 26 of 1948 was passed that minor darmila inamdars were owners of parts of an estate. Construing S. 3(b) in the light of the law as then accepted, when a notified estate vests in its entirety in the State under that provision, a minor darmila inam which forms part of it must also vest in it. The grantee of the inam is in the position of an owner of the part of the estate granted to him, and that would be relevant when the controversy is as to his true status, whether the dispute is between the landlord and the talent or between the inamdar and the State. If the inamdar is owner in relation to his tenants, it would be illogical to hold that he is not that, in relation to the State. The result then is that when the darmila inam does not relate to the entire village but only to a fraction of it, it must be held to retain its character as part of the estate in the hands of inamdars, and, when the estate is notified under S. 1(4) of the Act, the inam will vest in the State under S. 3(b).

       (2) The income from the lands comprised in the minor inam which is a part of the estate is included in the total income of the zamindari. The darmila minor inamdar is a person who is entitled to claim compensation for the transfer of his portion of the estate to the Government.

       Section 45 which applies only to the distribution of the compensation determined under S. 44 as payable to the principal landholder, when he is the holder of an impartibly estate, leaves untouched the rights of minor darmila inamdars to claim compensation under S. 44. It cannot, therefore be held that the Act provides no compensation to them and that they should, therefore, be held to fall outside the Act.

       (3) Section 20 has no application to transactions by which a person becomes a landholder by reason of ownership of even a part of the estate being transferred to him, and that being the character of a darmila minor inam it is not protected by S. 20.