The court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to statutory procedures in annuity fixation under the Kanam Tenancy Abolition Act.

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

The Cochin Thirumala Devaswom, a religious institution of the Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin Community, has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext. P22 order issued by the 1st respondent, whereby the final Kanam annuity payable to the petitioner under Section 4 (3) of the Kanam Tenancy Abolition Act, 1976 (Act 16 of 1976), has been arbitrarily fixed at ₹16,656. The petitioner contends that the said order is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the established tenets of law.

2. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a direction to the respondents to refix the final annuity, taking into consideration the total extent of 491.9560 hectares (equivalent to 1226 acres) of land, as contemplated under the provisions of Act 16 of

1976.

3. Prelude

3.1 The Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act XXIV of 1955), was enacted to confer full proprietary rights upon kanam tenants in the erstwhile Cochin area, subject only to the payment of jenmikaram. It also provided for the assessment, collection, and payment of jenmikaram, and for matters incidental thereto.

3.2 As reflected in its Preamble, the State Legislature found it expedient to confer such proprietary rights, subject to the payment of jenmikaram, and to streamline the mechanisms related to its collection.

3.3 Section 3 of the Act stipulates that the kanam tenant shall be deemed to b e the owner of the land, subject only to the payment of jenmikaram, and that the jenmi shall cease to have any further claim, right, or interest in such land beyond the right to receive jenmikaram.

3.4 Subsequently, the Kanam Tenancy Abolition Act, 1976 (Act 16 of 1976), was enacted to abolish t he intermediary rights of jenmies in respect of lands held by kanam tenants within the Cochin area of the State.

3.5 Section 3 of the 1976 Act provides that the jenmi shall no longer have the right to receive payment of jenmikaram, and correspondingly, the kanam tenant shall not be liable to pay the same. Both rights and obligations stood extinguished.

3.6 Section 4 of the Act provides for the amount payable in lieu of the extinguished rights. Sub-section (3) of specifically addresses religious or charitable institutions of a public nature, entitling them to an annual payment equal to the net jenmikaram receivable before the appointed day, after deducting 5%

towards collection charges.

3.7 Section 5 prescribes the mode of payment under Section 4 .

3.8 Section 7 provides that all proceedings relating to assessment and payment under the Act shall lie before the Settlement Officer.

3.9 Section 8 mandates the maintenance of a Jenmikaram register, with entries presumed to accurately reflect the legal rights, titles, and interests of the parties.

3.10 Under Section 8 (2), the Settlement Officer is empowered to rectify clerical or arithmetical errors either suo motu or on application, but only after affording an opportunity of hearing to affected parties.

3.11 Section 9 requires the Settlement Officer to prepare a draft roll for each jenmi, detailing inter alia:

(a) the jenmikaram amount;

(b) names of entitled recipients;

(c) names of liable kanam tenants;

(d) the amount or annuity payable; and (e) other prescribed particulars.

3.12 Section 10 mandates the publication of the draft roll in accordance with statutory procedure.

3.13 Section 11 provides that orders passed by the Settlement Officer shall be deemed decrees of a civil court.

Facts of this Case:

4. In the present case, the dispute centres around the fixation of annuity under Act 16 of 1976. Records show that the petitioner has been persistently approaching this Court from as early as 2003, seeking fixation of the annuity and disbursal of arrears. Despite judicial directions in Ext. P1 judgmen