Back
1957 Supreme(Mad) 300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. P. Rajagopalan, Officiating Chief Justice and Mr.Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar, xj.
S. Marimuthu Pillai
Versus
T. R. Krishna Joshi
S.T.A. Nos. 9 to 23, 56 and 57 of 1955.
Decided On : 18 November 1957
M. S. Venkatarama Aiyar, for Appellants.
R. Aravamudha Ayyangar and E. A. Viswanathan, for Respondents.
The acquisition of a melvaram interest by a kudivaramdar (occupancy ryot) creates a separate and distinct interest capable of transfer, which is not extinguished by the acquisition of the estate by the Government under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948).
Headnote:
ESTATES ABOLITION ACT - MADRAS ACT (XXVI OF 1948) - SECTIONS 3 (B), (C), (E), (F), 11, 13, 31, 41 (2), 42, 43, 44 - MADRAS ESTATES LAND ACT - SECTIONS 3 (5), 6 (1), 6 (5), 6 (6), 8 (1) - INTERPRETATION - COMPENSATION FOR ACQUISITION OF MELVARAM INTEREST - ENTITLEMENT OF RYOTWARI PATTAS - APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL - REMAND FOR REAPPORTIONMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, who were kudivaramdars (occupancy ryots) in an inam estate, purchased the melvaram (landlord's) interest in their holdings at a sale held by the Official Receiver. The estate was subsequently notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) (the Abolition Act), and the entire estate, including the melvaram interest purchased by the appellants, vested in the Government. The appellants claimed a share in the compensation deposited with the Tribunal in respect of the estate, arguing that they had acquired a separate and distinct interest in the melvaram which was transferred to the Government under section 3(b) of the Abolition Act and that they were entitled to compensation under section 3(e). The Tribunal rejected their claims, holding that they were not entitled to any compensation because the compensation deposited with the Tribunal did not include any sum attributable to their interest in the melvaram.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellants were entitled to a share in the compensation deposited with the Tribunal. The Court interpreted section 3(b) of the Abolition Act as transferring to the Government not only the interest of the "landholder" as defined in section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act, but also the melvaram interest held by persons like the appellants. The Court further held that the appellants' interest in the melvaram was a separate and distinct interest capable of transfer, and that it was not extinguished by the acquisition of the estate by the Government. The Court also held that the appellants were entitled to ryotwari pattas in respect of their holdings under section 11 of the Abolition Act, and that the annual ryotwari demand in respect of their holdings had to be taken into account in the computation of the basic annual sum under section 31(1) of the Act. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the compensation deposited with the Tribunal did not include any sum attributable to the appellants' interest in the melvaram, holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the propriety or quantum of compensation deposited by the Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants' acquisition of the melvaram interest in their holdings gave them a separate and distinct interest capable of transfer. 2. Whether the appellants' interest in the melvaram was extinguished by the acquisition of the estate by the Government under the Abolition Act. 3. Whether the appellants were entitled to ryotwari pattas in respect of their holdings under the Abolition Act. 4. Whether the annual ryotwari demand in respect of the appellants' holdings had to be taken into account in the computation of the basic annual sum under section 31(1) of the Abolition Act. 5. Whether the compensation deposited with the Tribunal included any sum attributable to the appellants' interest in the melvaram. 6. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the propriety or quantum of compensation deposited by the Government.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellants' acquisition of the melvaram interest in their holdings gave them a separate and distinct interest capable of transfer. 2. The appellants' interest in the melvaram was not extinguished by the acquisition of the estate by the Government under the Abolition Act. 3. The appellants were entitled to ryotwari pattas in respect of their holdings under section 11 of the Abolition Act. 4. The annual ryotwari demand in respect of the appellants' holdings had to be taken into account in the computation of the basic annual sum under section 31(1) of the Abolition Act. 5. The compensation deposited with the Tribunal included a sum attributable to the appellants' interest in the melvaram. 6. The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the propriety or quantum of compensation deposited by the Government.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed and the petitions were remanded to the Tribunal for reapportionment of the compensation in the light of the Court's decision that the appellants were entitled to a share in the compensation by virtue of their acquisition of the melvaram interest in their holdings.
A sum of Rs. 35,913, was deposited with the Tribunal under section 54-A of the Abolition Act in respect of the inam estate of Karungalur. As many as 42 petitions were preferred to the Tribunal seeking payment of proportionate shares in the sum so deposited. The Tribunal ordered four of these petitions and dismissed the rest. Appeals have been preferred by the petitioners whose claims have been rejected by the Tribunal.
It is necessary to state a few facts in order to understand the basis of the rejection of the appellants’ claims by the Tribunal and the contentions advanced before us questioning the correctness of that rejection.
It is common ground that the village was an inam estate falling within the definition of section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act the landholder being entitled only to melvaram in the village. The village of Karungalur formed part of the Tanjore Palace Estate and was allotted to the Senior Prince of Tanjore under the final decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1919 on the file of the District Court, Tanjore West. Karungalur had three hamlets, viz., Kulamangalam, Karungalur thottam and Gudalur thottam and the advance compensation amount deposited represented the sum due for the entire group. The hamlets of Karungalur became the property of the Junior Prince of Tanjore ; he was adjudicated an involvent in I.P. No. 40 of 1933 with the result that these came to be vested in the Official Receiver, Tanjore West. The several appellants originally owned kudivaram interest in the lands in their occupation and at a sale held by the Official Receiver, the melvaram interest of the landholder, the Junior Prince, in their holdings was purchased by the kudivaramdars. Under the provisions of the Madras Abolition Act these appellants would be entitled to the grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of their holdings.
The question, however, under debate is whether these appellants are entitled to any portion of the compensation deposited with the Tribunal as representing compensation due to the melvaram interest purchased by them at the sale held by the Official Receiver. The Tribunal held that they were not, and that is the only matter in controversy in the appeals.
The reasoning on the basis of which the Tribunal rested its decision was shortly this:-
1. When a person who holds a kudivaram interest in the land, obtains a transfer by purchase or otherwise of the melvaram interest in the same land, such a person does not become a landholder within the definition of the term in section 3 (5) of the Madras Estates Land Act but he remains merely a kudivaramdar ;
2. When the estate was notified under the Abolition Act (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) it was the interest of the ‘landholder’, that became vested in the Government under section 3 (b) of the Act and the compensation provided by that Act was only for the taking over of that interest;
3. In regard to the appellants’ interest as kudivaramdars, their rights were safeguarded by the proviso to section 3 (d) of the Act and they were given the right to obtain ryotwari pattas in respect of their holdings under section 11.
4. Prior to the notification and taking over of the estate, by reason of their purchase of the melvaram interest they might, no doubt, be exempt from the payment of rent to any landholder because the hand that had to pay the rent and the hand that was entitled to receive was the same but as the Abolition Act provided for the imposition by the Government of assessment on such lands, (vide section 3 (g) and sections 22 and 23 of the Act) the land revenue became payable on such lands. The Abolition Act provide
