The Chief Justice.-This application relates to the office of the karnam of Tangatur Village, Ongole taluk, Guntur District. One Ramakrishnayya was the holder of this office till 23rd November 1922, when he died. He left behind him two sons. The first respondent Venkatappa was then a major and the petitioner Purushotham a minor. The first respondent renounced his right to the office by a letter addressed to the Revenue authorities and the petitioner was recognised as the karnam of the village by an order of the Sub-Collector, dated 4th February 1923. As he was a minor he was registered as karnam with his paternal uncle as deputy. He attained majority in due course and took charge of the office in 1927 and ever since that date he has been discharging the duties of his office. While so, on 6th March, 1950, the Government passed an order purporting to be in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 2(c) of the Madras Restoration of Village Officers (Validation) Act (Madras Act XVIII of 1939) directing that the first respondent be appointed as karnam in the place of the petitioner, the existing incumbent. The petitioner seeks to have this order of Government quashed.

Madras Act XVIII of 1929 was passed for the purpose of validating the restoration of village officers who had lost their offices by reason of their association or connection with political movements. The Government thought that it was desirable to restore the position which would have obtained if the officers or their heirs had not lost their offices or their right thereto because of their association or connection with political movements. Section 2 of the Act runs thus:

“2. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras Proprietary Estates’ Village Service Act, 1894, or in the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895, or in any decree or order passed in any suit, appeal, application or revision or other proceeding (whether instituted, made, or taken under the Acts aforesaid or not) every order which has been, or which may hereafter be, passed by or on the direction of, the Provincial Government,

(a) restoring a village officer, who, by reason wholly or partly of his association or connection with any political movement had been removed or dismissed from his office, or had resigned there from, or had otherwise in any manner whatsoever ceased to hold the same; or

(b) appointing to the office or registering as entitled thereto the heir of any such village officer or of any person who in the ordinary course of events would have succeeded to the office or been registered as entitled thereto; or

(c) appointing to a village office, any person who, by reason wholly or partly of his association or connection with any political movement, had declined to accept the office or had been declared ineligible therefor; or

(d) appointing to a village office or registering as entitled thereto, the heir of any such person or of any other person who, in the ordinary course of events, would have succeeded to the office or been registered as entitled thereto; or

(e) directing the removal of any person from a village office in consequence of an order of the nature referred to in clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) above, shall be valid and be given effect to according to its tenor, and so much order shall be called in question in any Court of law.” Section 3 lays down that if the Provincial Government declare that any order passed by them is of the nature referred to in section 2, such declaration shall be conclusive proof thereof and all Courts shall take judicial notice of the same. In this case the order of the Government was passed under section 2(c), that is to say, the Government were of the opinion that the first respondent had by reason wholly or partly of his connection with the political movement of the day declined to accept the office to which ordinarily he would have become entitled on the death of his father. The petitioner attempted to challenge the validity of the Government

Click Here to Read the rest of this document