The main legal point established in the judgment is that the full proprietary rights conferred upon holders of pandarapattam lands by the Proclamation of 1040 ME, and the satisfaction of the essential features of the ryotwari system, led to the conclusion that pandarapattam lands are estates for the purposes of Art.31A(2)(a) of the constitution.

(For himself and on behalf of Gopalan Nambiyar, Krishnamoorthy Iyer and Unnikrishna Kurup JJ.

1. The question put to us by the bench of three judges that was hearing this appeal was whether pandarapattam lands (otherwise known as pandara-vakapattam or sirkarpattam lands) of the Travancore area not falling within clause (iii) of the inclusive limb of the definition of, "estate" in Art.31A(2) (a) of the Constitution, were estates within the meaning of the definition -- with regard to lands that fall within the clause, there could, of course, be no doubt, and that must have been why the question was so framed. On the 17th November 1970, we answered this question in the affirmative. We did not then give our reasons. We do so now.

2. The definition reads thus:

31A(2) In this article,

(a) The expression Jestate" shall, in relation to any local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and shall also include

(i) any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant and in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, any Janmam right; (ii) any land held under ryotwari settlement;

(iii) any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, including waste land, forest land. land for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village artisans;" .

In Govindaru Nambooripad v. State 1962 KLT. 913 a bench of three judges of this Court had held that pandarapattam lands of the Travancore area-we shall not repeat this qualification hereafter -were not estates within the meaning of the definition-clauses (ii) and (iii) were not there then, they were added only subsequently (albeit with retrospective effect) by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. It was thought that this decision required reconsideration and that was why the question was referred to a larger bench.

3. The argument before us has proceeded, on all hands, on the footing that before the issue of what is known as the Royal Proclamation of 1040 ME. by the Maharaja of Travancore, the holders of pandarapattam lands-what the term means is lands held on pandarapattam and what is really material is the nature of the holding-were mere tenants at will having no proprietary rights whatsoever in the land, the full proprietary rights vesting in the Sirkar or the Government as distinguished from the Maharaja in his personal capacity. (This is quite in keeping with what is stated in paragraphy of the Settlement Proclamation of 1061 ME., namely, that those lands were originally the absolute property of Government, the tenants being mere tenants at will, but that, by the Royal Proclamation of 1040, Government generously waived all right to those lands and declared them to be the private, heritable, saleable, property of the holders. But it is not quite in keeping with the observations of Rajagopala Ayyangar J. in Purushothaman v. State of Kerala AIR. 1962 Supreme Court 694 at page 714, where, as a matter of construcion of the Proclamation of 1040, his Lordship said that the Proclamation speaks of the relinquishment or withdrawal or the right of the State and not of the conferment of a right on the ryot so as to render the ryot a gran-tee from the State, just in line with the Hindu Law theory of the proprietorship of the soil vesting in the occupant-cultivator). We are of the view that if, as held in Govindaru Nambooripad v. State,1962 KLT. 913, the lands in question are not caught by the body of the definition as answering the local equivalent of the expression, "estate", they can hardly escape the claws of clause (ii) of the inclusive limb of the definition as lands held under ryotwari settlement.

4. The Proclamation of 1040 runs thus: "PROCLAMATION

By His Highness the Maha Rajah of Travancore, issued under date the 2nd June 1865, corresponding to the 21st Edavam 1040.

Whereas we earnestly desire t