Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. RAJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. JAGADEESAN
Shanmugham & Others
Versus
Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam Madam through its Herediatary Trustee & Others
S.T.A. No. 14 of 1982
Decided On :Decided on : 09-10-1996
INAM ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT - SECTION 2(13)(II)(B), 9(2)(A) - TAMIL NADU ACT 26 OF 1963 - NEW INAM ESTATE - PRIVATE LAND - RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION - PERSONAL CULTIVATION - RYOTWARI PATTA - ENTITLEMENT. The grant of inam as "Kattukuthagai" inam is not sufficient to substantiate the pannai or private character of the land. The decision in State of Madras v. S.P.K. Koya (1964 (1) M.L.J. 232 = 76 L.W. 776) does not conform to the decision of the Privy Council in Secretary of the State for India v. Srimath Vidhya Sri Varada Thirtha Swamigal (1942 (2) M.L.J. 367 = 55 L.W. 356 (P.C.)).
Fact of the Case:
The land in question formed part of Esanamadam Estate which consisted of larger extent covered by three title deeds namely T.D. Nos. 270, 271 and 272. The landholder-Adheenam filed W.P. No. 4823 of 1965 on the file of this Court, challenging the notification for taking over the Inam Estate. Though initially while entertaining the writ petition, interim order of stay was also granted, subsequently the same appears to have been dismissed on 24-6-1966 by a common order made in the said writ petition as wed as in W.P. No. 1552 of 1965. The matter has been pursued by the land holder before the Supreme Court of India in C.A. No. 672 of 1967 and stay of further proceedings was obtained from the Apex Court. Thereupon, the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal on 30-11-1970 without detriment to the claims of the land holder Adheenam under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Inams (Supplementary) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 31/1963). The landholder thereupon filed a petition before the Settlement Officer, Madurai under Section 5 of the Act for a declaration that the village in question was not an Estate within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/1963. The Settlement Officer, by his proceedings dated 17-1-1972, held that the non-ryotwari area constituting Esanamadam was a minor inam. As against that order, one Ayyasami felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal (Sub-Court), Tirunelveli under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963. The Tribunal by its common order in R.A. Nos. 32, 42, 43 and 45 of 1972 dated 19-3-1975 held that the grant covered by T.D. Nos. 270 and 272 are Minor Inams to be dealt with under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30/1963), while the grant covered by T.D. No. 271 was a part village or new Inam Estate to be dealt with under the Tamd Nadu Act 26 of 1963. As against the said order of the Inam Abolition Tribunal, the landholder preferred revisions before this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2195, 2196 and 2305 of 1975. Ultimately this Court by a common order dated 10-2-1978 held the grant covered by T.D. No. 271 is a part Inam or new Inam Estate to be dealt with under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963.
Finding of the Court:
The grant in question covered by T.D. No. 271 is a new Inam Estate, that according to the amended Act, Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1966 which came into force on 1-1-1964 a religious institution need not prove personal cultivation and it would suffice if the land-holder proves that the suit lands belonged to him as private or pannai land as defined under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, that the appellants claimants before him cannot merely take shelter under Section 65(1) of the Act and unless it was proved that the land was already included in the holding of a ryot they should satisfy strictly the requirements of Section 10(2) (a) of the Act and they cannot succeed in getting ryotwari patta in their name by merely relying upon Section 10 (2) (b) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the grant of inam as "Kattukuthagai" inam is sufficient to substantiate the pannai or private character of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The expression “Kattukuthagai Village,” particularly in Tirunelveli District has been interpreted to mean and to refer only to a tenure in land. The questions have been considered by the Judicial Committee in Secretary of the State for India v. Srimath Vidhya Sri Varada Thirta Swamigal 1942 (2) M.L.J. 367 = 55 L.W. 356 (P.C.) and the view taken is that the term “Kattukuthagai” refers only to a conferment of a freehold in the land though no doubt to be held by the grantee on favourable terms. The definition of “kattukuthagai” in Wilsons Glossary as “land held in form at a permanently fixed money rent which is usually light” is accepted as the true and correct definition.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
D. RAJU, J.
1. The above appeal has been filed under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963) hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ by the various occupants of different extents of land who claimed ryotwari patta on the ground that they are ryots in possession and occupation of ryoti land under the provisions of the Act challenging the orders of the authorities below, rejecting their claim and directing the issue of patta in favour of the first r espondent/land-holder.
2. The present enquiry culminating in the above appeal under the Act preceded by different proceedings, some among the parties and some between the State and the land-holder, needs a brief reference for a proper understanding of the nature of the claim projected in the above appeal. The lands in question formed part of Esanamadam Estate which consisted of larger extent covered by three title deeds namely T.D. Nos. 270, 271 and 272. Originally, the entire estate comprising five survey groups of villages covered by the three title deeds were notified as an estate under Section 1
(4) of the Act in G.O.Ms. No. 3193, Revenue Department, dated 19-11-1965 and it was actually taken over by the Government under the Act on 15-12-1965. After the said notification, the land-holder-Adheenam appears to have filed W.P. No. 4823 of 1965 on the file of this Court, challenging the notification for taking over the Inam Estate. Though initially while entertaining the writ petition, interim order of stay was also granted, subsequently the same appears to have been dismissed on 24-6-1966 by a common order made in the said writ petition as wed as in W.P. No. 1552 of 1965. The matter has been pursued by the land holder before the Supreme Court of India in C.A. No. 672 of 1967 and stay of further proceedings was obtained from the Apex Court. Thereupon, the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal on 30-11-1970 without detriment to the claims of the land holder Adheenam under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Inams (Supplementary) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 31/1963). The landholder thereupon filed a petition before the Settlement Officer, Madurai under Section 5 of the Act for a declaration that the village in question was not an Estate within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/1963. The Settlement Officer, by his proceedings dated 17-1-1972, held that the non-ryotwari area constituting Esanamadam was a minor inam. As against that order, one Ayyasami felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal (Sub-Court), Tirunelveli under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963. The Tribunal by its common order in R.A. Nos. 32, 42, 43 and 45 of 1972 dated 19-3-1975 held that the grant covered by T.D. Nos. 270 and 272 are Minor Inams to be dealt with under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30/1963), while the grant covered by T.D. No. 271 was a part village or new Inam Estate to be dealt with under the Tamil Nadu Act 26/1963. As against the said order of the Inam Abolition Tribunal, the landholder preferred revisions before this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2195, 2196 and 2305 of 1975. Ultimately this Court by a common order dated 10-2-1978 held the grant covered by T.D. No. 271 is a part Inam or new Inam Estate to be dealt with under the Tamd Nadu Act 26 of 1963. The subject matter of the proceedings now under consideration in this appeal relates to Vallankottai survey group out of the total five survey groups of villages which are concerned.
2 (a). The Settlement Tahsildar, Branch Settlement Office, Madurai, initiated suo motu enquiry under the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 and served the prescribed notice in the statutory form on the occupants of the land and also the landholder Adheenam, apart from having the prescribed notice in the statutory form also published in the several places as required. The landholder Adheenam as als
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
