Jurisdiction to notify under provision of Act.

The petitioner is Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam. The petition relates to a notification issued by the Government under Madras Act XXVI of 1963, fixing the 1st day of October, 1966 as the appointed day on which the provisions of that Act would take effect in relation to the village of Kodarankulam. The petitioner states that the lands were originally leased by the Nawab of Carnatic to one Ragho Pandit, that later the lease was converted into Kattukuthagai, that on the assumption of power by the British Government full assessment was charged annually, and that finally during the Inam settlement the inam tenure was converted into a permanent freehold and title deed 204 dated 10th September, 1864 was issued by the Government. The petitioner’s contention is that the inam which has been enfranchised stands on the same footing as ryotwari land, and that the provisions of Madras Act XXVI could not be applied to the village. The contention on behalf of the Government, however, is that the term “freehold” in relation to inam is only the conferment of the right of alienation free from the restrictions, that the inam character itself was not abolished, that the word “ freehold” in inam was used in two different senses, (1) a freehold in perpetuity subject to the payment of quit rent and (2) absolute freehold free of all tax whatever was due to the Government, that this is not a case of permanent freehold, that if there was no inam tenure, the title deed would not have been issued under the rules framed in the Settlement of Inams, and that the contention of the petitioner that the village is not at all an inam is not maintainable.

But for the strange arguments advanced in this case, I would not have considered that this matter lends itself to any argument whatsoever in answer to the contentions on behalf of the petitioner. The arguments ignore the whole course of inam proceedings, the purpose for which the Inam Commission was set up and the result of the activities of the Inam Commission. In the Collection of papers relating to the Inam Settlement in the Madras Presidency, Volume 1, published by the Madras Government in 1948, at page 46, we find minutes by the President of the Board at that time. The minutes contain proposals for settlement of inams, and with regard to personal inams to which class the inam in this case relates, at page 53, it is stated as follows:

“The same course shall be followed in reference to inams of a personal nature. It should first be ascertained whether the title to the inams according to the existing tenure is good ; and if this should be established by the production of a valid grant or by evidence of uninterrupted possession for fifty years, it should then be open to the holder either to retain the inam according to his actual tenure, subject to the liability of lapse and without the power of alienation, or to enfranchise it by payment of an annual quit-rent, or a single fixed sum equal to so many years purchase of the quit-rent.”

At page 70, we get rules for the adjudication and settlement of the inam lands of the Madras Presidency. These rules are now part of the Board Standing Orders and find a place in appendices to Chapter III of Volume II of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue published in 1966. They apply even now to inams not already enfranchised. In the aforesaid collection of papers relating to the Inam Settlement of the Madras Presidency, Volume I, at page 71, we find mentioned that, if the inam is a personal or subsistence grant, it will be confirmed to the holder according to its actual tenure. The conditions upon which this tenure will be commuted into a freehold, according as the inamdar is a descendant of the original grantee and of the registered holder, or has acquired the inam through an alienation, are set forth below. If the present incumbent is a descendant of the original grantee or of the original registered holder, the inam will be continued to him hereditarily, subject to th