Back
1966 Supreme(Mad) 165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice K. Veeraswami and Mr. Justice M. Natesan, xj.
M. K. Subbachariar
Versus
State of Madras by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Madras
W. P. Nos. 1552, etc. of 1969.
Decided On : 24 June 1966
V. Vedantachari, K. Parasaran, K. Sarvabhauman, K. S. Champakesa Iyengar, P.Sivaramakrishnaiah, N. Srivatsan, R. Gopalaswami Iyengar, T. M. Chinnaya Pillai, S. M. Amjad Nainar, K. S. Desikan, T. V. Balakrishnan, K. Rajah Iyer, R. Rangachari, G. N. Chary, T. K. Subramania Pillai, T. R. Thyagarajan, T. R. Ramachandran. K. S. Sankara lyer, G. Ramanujam, K. Yamunan, Ps. Narasimhan, V.V. Raghavan, V. Shanmugham, K. S. Naidu, R. Kunchithapatham, K. Ramaswami, R. Sundaralingam, R. Ramarmurthi Iyer, N. C. Srinivasan, P. Balasubramaniam, N. R. Chandran, S. Bhaskaran, G. Krishnamurthi Iyer, A. Sundaram Iyer, S. M. Subramaniam, S. V. Rama Iyengar, N. Appu Rao, B. Punyakoti Chetty, A. S. Raman, K. Raman, T. R. Srinivasan, and R. Sundaravaradan, for Petitioners.
The Advocate-General and K. Venkataswami, for the Additional Government Pleader, R. Shanmugam, K. V. Sankaran, S. Mohan and K. S. Sankara Iyer, for Respondents.
Subject matter of enactments estates.
Headnote:Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963- Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963-Madras Lease holds (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963-Validity-Held, all the three Acts are constitutionally valid.
Key Points: - The impugned Acts were held constitutionally valid, being within the legislative power to acquire inam estates for agrarian reform under Article 31-A (!) (!) (!) . - Inam estates include existing inam estates and new inam estates, covering whole villages, part villages, and minor inams as defined in the Act (!) (!) (!) . - Legislative competence extends to extinguishing or modifying rights in inam estates, including arrears of rent, where such provisions form part of a scheme of land reform under Entry 18 and Entry 42 (!) (!) (!) . - Compensation need not be just equivalent for property acquired under Article 31-A, and principles prescribed in the law are not justiciable on grounds of inadequacy (!) (!) (!) . - The President’s assent to laws under Article 31-A is not justiciable, and courts cannot question the propriety of the President’s action (!) (!) (!) . - Provisions for payment of arrears of rent operate as a waiver of arrears on stipulated terms and are within legislative competence under Entry 18 (!) (!) (!) . - Even if compensation is small or incommensurate, the Act is protected from challenge if it falls within Article 31-A (!) (!) . - The Acts do not confiscate property, as they provide a scheme of compensation, even if partial, and are aimed at land reform (!) (!) . - Once an inam estate is acquired under the Act, the landholder is entitled only to rights and privileges conferred by the statute (!) (!) . - Challenges to specific properties not being inams must be determined by the tribunal under the Act based on the terms of the grant (!) (!) .
What is the scope of legislative power to acquire inam estates under Article 31-A of the Constitution?
How are inam estates defined for the purpose of acquisition under the Madras Inam Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act?
What is the validity of provisions for extinguishing or modifying rights in inam estates under the challenged Acts?
In this batch of writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the constitutional validity of three Acts of the State Legislature are Under challenge. These three Acts, the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1963), the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXX of 1963) and the Madras Leaseholds (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVII of 1963), hereinafter referred to for convenience as Inam Estates Act, Minor Inams Act and Leaseholds Act respectively, are steps in the final phase of the series of legislation in carrying forward the country’s policy of agrarian reforms, the first effective step having been taken so early as in 1948 when the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) was passed. Under Act XXVI of 1948, the intermediaries in the Zamindari and Under-tenure estates and whole inam villages in which the grant consisted of Melwaram alone were abolished and the ryotwari settlement introduced. The objective of the three present enactments is the introduction of ryotwari settlement in respect of lands held under certain inam and leasehold tenures under the Government, left out in the Estates Abolition Act. The pattern of legislation in the matter of abolition and conversion and providing for ryotwari settlement is more or less in the line of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, a departure from the Act being made wherever necessitated by reason of difference in tenures. Though the petitions now before us fall under three groups, as the main plank of attack as to the constitutional validity is common, they all have been heard together. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the provisions relating to the payment of compensation are so framed as to make the compensation illusory. The provisions regarding the grant of ryotwari pattas are termed arbitrary and discriminatory and as having no relation to the tenures under which lands have been held. Particular attack is made in regard to the provision in the Acts for. wiping of arrears of rent. The petitioners charge the Legislature with committing a fraud on power to deprive the absolute proprietors of lands of their rights in property and the rents in arrears under the guise of agrarian reforms for the abolition of intermediaries and settling the lands on the actual cultivators. Some of the petitioners are religious and charitable endowments and some of them are mutts ; and it is contended for these religious institutions that the effect of the Acts would result in the violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It is urged that Article 31-A. of the Constitution cannot protect the Acts in question ; nor Article 31 (2) stand in the way of judicial scrutiny of the provisions relating to compensation. The State seeks to sustain the validity of the Acts by reference to Entry 18 and Entry 45 in List II and Entry 42 in List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution and relies for protection from attacks based on Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, on Article 31-A, while at the same time contending on the merits that the provisions in the Acts on all aspects are unimpeachale fair and reasonable.
It will be convenient to take up for consideration first, the Inam Estates Act (XXVI of 1963). Writ Petition Nos. 1457 and 1552 of 1956 are typical of the inams covered by the Act and a brief reference to the facts therein would be sufficient for our present purpose. Writ Petition" No. 2586 of 1965 is one of a group of writs relating to what the Act defines as Pudukkotta Inam Estates. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1965 is a religious institution Abisheka Kattalai, Sri Thyagarajaswami Devasthanam, Tiruvarur, represented by Sri La Sri Ajapa Nateswara Pandara Sannadhi and the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam. The petitioner is the inamdar of the inam villages Elandavancheri, Palavoy, Thyagajapurarn Kamalalayam Kattalai, Chandrasekara
