SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(SC) 251

M.H.BEG, K.K.MATHEW
K. M. Sengoda Goundar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madras – Respondent


Advocates:
A.Subhashini, A.V.RANGAM, K.JAYRAMAN GOWDA, K.S.Ramamurthy, M.S.K.Shastri, S.GOPALAKRISHNA IYER

Judgment

MATHEW, J.:- The second respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madras challenging the validity of a notification issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 of 1963), on the ground that Komarapalayam Agraharam, Tiruchengoda Taluk, Salem District, is not inam and therefore the notification can have no application to that hamlet. He also challenged the constitutional validity of the aforesaid Act During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellants, claiming to be the tenants under the inamdar got themselves impleaded as respondents 2 to 31 to the writ petition. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Act is constitutionally valid but that he hamlet in question is not an inam or part of village inam and, therefore the Act can have no application to it and allowed the writ petition. This appeal, by certificate, is from the judgment of the High Court.

2. Komarapalayam Agraharam is comprised in Jadagapady village. The question whether Komarapalayam Agraharam is inam was raised at an earlier stage by some of the tenants of the hamlet and the matter came up before







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top