Back
1966 Supreme(SC) 76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Cochin Devaswom Board, Trichur, Appellant (In all the appeals)
Versus
1. Vamana Setti and another (In C. A. No. 11 of 1964); 2. Pulakode Kizhake Madom and another (In C. As. Nos. 12 and 15 of 1964); 3. Eralil Mathai Paul and another (In C. A. No. 13 of 1964); 4. Thottakkat Bhammathi Amma and another (In C. A. No. 14 of 1964); 5. Kallianikutty Amma and others (In C. A. No. 16 of 1964); 6. The State of Kerala and others (In C. As. Nos. 17 and 18 of 1964), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 11 to 18 of 1964, D/- 2-3-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. K. Nambyar Senior Advocate, (M/s. P. K. Krishnan Kutty Menon and B. Dutta, Advocates and M/s J. B. Dadachandji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain Advocates of M/s J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Appellant; Mr. Niren De, Addl. Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. A. G. Pudissery and M. R. K. Pillai, Advocates, with him), for Respondent the State of Kerala (In C. As Nos. 17 and 18 of 1964).
Statutory grants and undertakings constitute contracts of tenancy, bringing such lands under tenancy legislation. Regional legislative classification in agrarian reform is valid if tenure systems differ across regions, satisfying the requirement of intelligible differentia under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Travancore-Cochin Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 2 - Constitution of India - Article 14 and 31(2) - Application of tenancy laws to lands held from religious institutions - Whether the Act applies to lands where rents were fixed by statutory rules rather than private contracts - The terms of a grant and the corresponding undertaking executed by the tenant constitute a contract of tenancy - Definitions of 'holding', 'michavaram', and 'renewal fee' apply regardless of whether the landlord is a religious institution or a private individual - The Act partially supersedes prior proclamations regarding the rights and obligations of tenants. (Paras 11-14)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equal protection of laws - Discrimination between landlords in different regions - To establish a violation of Article 14, the claimant must prove that persons similarly situated were treated differently without an intelligible differentia - Differences in the nature of tenure and existing laws across different regions justify regional legislative classification - Mere regional limitation of an agrarian reform act does not automatically render it discriminatory. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
A religious institution board sought to recover rents based on a 1910 proclamation and subsequent rules. Tenants claimed proprietary rights under a 1955 tenancy act which limited the landlord's interest to a fixed annual payment. The board argued the act did not apply to its lands as the relationship was statutory, not contractual, and that the act was discriminatory as it applied only to one region of the state while excluding others.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the administrative process of issuing a lease and requiring an undertaking by the tenant created a contractual relationship falling within the scope of the tenancy act. It further found that the different regions of the state had distinct tenure systems and laws, justifying the regional application of the act.
Issues: (1) Whether the tenancy act governs lands held from religious institutions; (2) Whether the act infringes the guarantee of equal protection of the laws and is therefore void.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant of a lease and the execution of an undertaking constitute a contract of tenancy, making the land a 'holding' under the act. Regarding equality, the court ruled that the burden is on the claimant to prove similarity of status; since tenure systems differed across regions, the regional classification was based on an intelligible differentia and not an unlawful discrimination.
Result: Appeals dismissed with costs.
SHAH J. : Two questions fall to be determined in these appeals: 1982
(1) Whether the Travancore-Cochin Kanam Tenancy Act 24 of 1955 governs lands held from Devaswoms (religious institutions) in the Cochin region of the State of Kerala; and
(2) Whether the Act infringes the guarantee of equal protection of the laws and is on that account void?
2. Kanam tenure has a feudal origin. Broadly stated it is a customary transfer which partakes of the character of a mortgage and of a lease: it cannot be redeemed before a fixed number of years - normally twelve - and the (Kanamdar) mortgagee-lessee is entitled on redemption to compensation for improvements. The annual payments to the (Jenmi) mortgagor-lessor are regulated by what remains of the fixed share of the produce after deducting interest. If the land is not redeemed on the expiry of 12 years, a renewal fee becomes payable to the jenmi. The Cochin State Manual contains the following description of the Kanam tenure in the Cochin region:
"The Verumpattam (simple lease) becomes a kanam lease when the jenmi (land-holder) acknowledges liability to pay a lump sum to the tenant on the redemption of his lease. In the old days his liability was created in most cases as a reward to the tenant for military or other services rendered by him, but in more recent times, kanam encumbrances were generally created by the jenmi borrowing money from his tenant to meet any extraordinary expenditure by the conversion of the compensation payable to Kuzhikanam (lessee who had a right to make improvements) holders into a kanam debt, or by the treatment of the amount deposited by the tenant for the punctual payment of rent and husband-like cultivation as a charge on the land. In kanam leases the net produce, after deducting the cost of seed and cultivation, is shared equally between the landlord and the tenant, and from the share of the former the tenant is entitled to deduct interest on the kanam amount at five per cent. The over-plus, that is payable to the jenmi after making these deductions is known as michavaram. The kanamdar is entitled to the undisturbed enjoyment of the land for twelve years, but formerly it was for the lifetime of the demisor. At the end of this period, the lease may be terminated by the jenmi paying the kanam amount and the value of the improvements effected by the tenant, or it may be renewed on the latter paying a premium or renewal fee to the landlord"
After the expulsion in 1762 of the Zamorin of Calicut who had invaded Cochin, the Ruler of Cochin divested the chieftains who had supported the invader of their administrative powers and confiscated their properties, and the Devaswoms under their management. Managers of the major Devaswoms who had welcomed the invader were also deprived of their powers, and administration of a large majority of Devaswoms was assumed by the State. Some minor Devaswoms were later taken over by the State, because of incompetent or dishonest management, and a scheme was devised by the State for maintenance of accounts of the Devaswoms properties and for administration of the affairs of the Devaswoms according to the existing usage. The Devaswoms, revenues and expenditure whereof were thus completely merged in the general revenue, were called Incorporated Devaswoms. Some time after the incorporation of these Devaswoms, management of two well-known endowed temples was surrendered to the Ruler, but administration of these Devaswoms was not amalgamated with the "Incorporated" Devaswoms and their expenditure continued to be met from the receipts from the temples. Later the State assumed management of some more Devaswoms and treated them in the same manner as the two major temples. These institutions which were later acquired were treated as independent of each other as well as of the "Incorporated" Devaswoms and were called "Unincorporated" Devaswoms.
3. On February 11, 1910, the Ruler of Cochin issued a Proclamation publishing rules to secure bett
