# Anakapalla Cotierative Agricultural and Industrial Socie~y Ltd v. lVorknun

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 750
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Bench:** S. K. Das, K. Subra Rao, Rajagopala Ayyangar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/anakapalla-cotierative-agricultural-and-industrial-socie-y-ltd-v-lvorknun-2743
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Estate1J Abolition-Estates recogniaed by the Governmtnt-
"Recognition", meaning of-Mere inaction, if amounts to
recognitiun-Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (1 of 1908),
s. 3(2)\d).
The Government of Orissa, treating the villages in ques·
tion as estates, issued notifications under the provisions cf the
Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952, declaring that the said
estates became vested in the State free from all encumbrancei
from the dates specified therein. The inamdars of the respective
\"illages challenged ~he legality of t~e notifications by filing
petitions in the High Court of Onssa under~·-226 of the
Constitution of India on the ground that the said mams were
not estates within the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras
Estates Land Act, 1908, as they were excluded from the assets
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
751
of the Jcypore Zamindari or Kot pad Paragana at the time of
the settlements, that they were neither confirmed nor recognised
by the British Government, and that, therefore, they were not
liable to be abolished under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act.
In respect of the villages held within the geographical limits of
theJeypore Zamindari, an enquiry was made by the Government as to whether they should be enfranchised, but, on objections raised by the Zamindar, the Government passed an order
on Novrmber 1, 1919, deciding not to take further action.
As
regards the other villages, there was no evidence to show that
the Government had directed any enquiry into the titles of the
said inams or did any act dehors the enquiry to recognize their
titles. The High Court took the view that mere inaction on the
part of the Government amounted to recognition of the grants
in favour of the inamdars and that the villages in question were
recognized by the British Government withins. 3(2)(d) of the
Madras Estates Land Act.
Held,that under s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land
Act, 1908, "recognition" meant an acknowledgement by t!ie
Government of the title of a grantee expressly or by some unequivocal act on its part. .:\cquiescence in the context of certain
surrounding circumstances may amount to recognition. but it
must be such as to lead to that inevitable conclusion.
~.fere
inaction dehors such compelling circumstances cannot ainount to
recognition within the meaning of the section.
Inam Rules framed by the Government in 1859 providing
for an enquiry and directing the confirmation of title on the
basis of possession, laid dovvn only a procedure for ascertaining
the titles and did not proprio vtgore confer title on, or recognize
the title of, any inamdar.
Held, further, that the order of the Government dated
November 1, 1919, amounted to a recognition of the inamdar\
title, but that as regards the other inamdars in respect of whom
no enquiry had been made, the High Court errecl in holding
that the Government bad recognized their inams.
Secretary of State .for India v. Bhavmnurt!ty, (I 912) 24
M. L.J. 538 and Sam v. liamalinga Mudaliar, (1916) I. L R
40 Mad. 664, approved.
Observations in Mantrava<li Bha11ana.rayana v.
1~fet11g11
Venkata<fo, I. L. R. [19541 Macl. 116 and P. V. Namyana R~,,,
v. State of Orissa, I. L. R. [1956] Cuttack 348, that mere
inaction on the part of the (;overnmF-nt Y.'0tild constitute recognition, disapproved.
'
1962
T.Y.Y.Nanuimlwm
v.
Sl4t. of Orissa
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
1962
CIVIL
APPELLA'l'E
JURISDICTION
:
Appeals Nos. l 47 to 157 of 1962.
Civil
T.V.V, )'{arasimham
v.
Stat1 ofOrisso
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
January :1, 1B:'i7, of the Orissa High Court in 0.J. C.
Nos. 71, 95, 75, 68, 69, 72, 74, 108, 70, 66 and 67 of
HJ54 respectively.
A. 1'. Vis1mnathn Sa8tri' and 1vl. S. K. Sastri,
for the appellants.
H. ;Y. Sany<il, Additional Solicitor-General of
Indin. .f. C. S(;ik, B. R. G. K. Achar and R. N.
Srichthey, for the respondents.
l 962. October 24.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SenBA RAO, J.-These appeals raise the same
poiul, namely, the true
interpretation
of

## Text

1962
Anakapalla Cotierative Agricultural
and Industrial
Socie~y Ltd.
v.
lVorknun
'Jajendragi1dkar, J.
1962
Ottob1r, 24.
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
that in cases of this kind, the workmen must get
retrenchment compensation and re-employment almost simultaneously is inconsistent with the very basis
of the concept of retrenchment compensation. We
are therefore, satisfied that the general principles of
social justice and fair play on which this alternative
argument is based, do not justify the claim made by
the respondents.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the
award is set aside.
There would be no order as to
costs.
Appeal allnwed.
--
T. V. V. NARASIMHAM AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF ORISSA
(S. K. DAS, K. SUBRA RAO and N, RAJAGOPALA
AYYANGAR, J.J.)
Estate1J Abolition-Estates recogniaed by the Governmtnt-
"Recognition", meaning of-Mere inaction, if amounts to
recognitiun-Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (1 of 1908),
s. 3(2)\d).
The Government of Orissa, treating the villages in ques·
tion as estates, issued notifications under the provisions cf the
Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952, declaring that the said
estates became vested in the State free from all encumbrancei
from the dates specified therein. The inamdars of the respective
\"illages challenged ~he legality of t~e notifications by filing
petitions in the High Court of Onssa under~·-226 of the
Constitution of India on the ground that the said mams were
not estates within the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras
Estates Land Act, 1908, as they were excluded from the assets
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
751
of the Jcypore Zamindari or Kot pad Paragana at the time of
the settlements, that they were neither confirmed nor recognised
by the British Government, and that, therefore, they were not
liable to be abolished under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act.
In respect of the villages held within the geographical limits of
theJeypore Zamindari, an enquiry was made by the Government as to whether they should be enfranchised, but, on objections raised by the Zamindar, the Government passed an order
on Novrmber 1, 1919, deciding not to take further action.
As
regards the other villages, there was no evidence to show that
the Government had directed any enquiry into the titles of the
said inams or did any act dehors the enquiry to recognize their
titles. The High Court took the view that mere inaction on the
part of the Government amounted to recognition of the grants
in favour of the inamdars and that the villages in question were
recognized by the British Government withins. 3(2)(d) of the
Madras Estates Land Act.
Held,that under s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land
Act, 1908, "recognition" meant an acknowledgement by t!ie
Government of the title of a grantee expressly or by some unequivocal act on its part. .:\cquiescence in the context of certain
surrounding circumstances may amount to recognition. but it
must be such as to lead to that inevitable conclusion.
~.fere
inaction dehors such compelling circumstances cannot ainount to
recognition within the meaning of the section.
Inam Rules framed by the Government in 1859 providing
for an enquiry and directing the confirmation of title on the
basis of possession, laid dovvn only a procedure for ascertaining
the titles and did not proprio vtgore confer title on, or recognize
the title of, any inamdar.
Held, further, that the order of the Government dated
November 1, 1919, amounted to a recognition of the inamdar\
title, but that as regards the other inamdars in respect of whom
no enquiry had been made, the High Court errecl in holding
that the Government bad recognized their inams.
Secretary of State .for India v. Bhavmnurt!ty, (I 912) 24
M. L.J. 538 and Sam v. liamalinga Mudaliar, (1916) I. L R
40 Mad. 664, approved.
Observations in Mantrava<li Bha11ana.rayana v.
1~fet11g11
Venkata<fo, I. L. R. [19541 Macl. 116 and P. V. Namyana R~,,,
v. State of Orissa, I. L. R. [1956] Cuttack 348, that mere
inaction on the part of the (;overnmF-nt Y.'0tild constitute recognition, disapproved.
'
1962
T.Y.Y.Nanuimlwm
v.
Sl4t. of Orissa
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
1962
CIVIL
APPELLA'l'E
JURISDICTION
:
Appeals Nos. l 47 to 157 of 1962.
Civil
T.V.V, )'{arasimham
v.
Stat1 ofOrisso
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
January :1, 1B:'i7, of the Orissa High Court in 0.J. C.
Nos. 71, 95, 75, 68, 69, 72, 74, 108, 70, 66 and 67 of
HJ54 respectively.
A. 1'. Vis1mnathn Sa8tri' and 1vl. S. K. Sastri,
for the appellants.
H. ;Y. Sany<il, Additional Solicitor-General of
Indin. .f. C. S(;ik, B. R. G. K. Achar and R. N.
Srichthey, for the respondents.
l 962. October 24.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SenBA RAO, J.-These appeals raise the same
poiul, namely, the true
interpretation
of
the
expression "recognised" in s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras
Estates Land Act {l of 1908), hereinafter called the
Madras Act, and they can be disposed of together.
The facts giving rise to the said appeals may be
briefly stated. The Government of Orissa treating
the villages, which are the subject-matter of these
appeals, as "estates" issued notifications declaring
that the said estates became ve5ted in the State free
from all encumbrances from the dates specified therein.
The inamdars of the respective villages filed petitior.s in the High Court of Orissa under Art. 226 of the
Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ for
can cc !ling the said notifications and for orders prohibiting the State from taking possession of the said
vill·ges.
The said villages can be placed in three groups,
namely, (i) villages covered by Appeals Nos. 150,
lfil and 155 which arc admittedly within the geogra·
phical limits of .J en~ore: Zamindari which was settled
in the year 1803; (n) villages covered by Appeals Nos.
un. J 54 and 1;;7 which are within the geogratihical
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOR1'S
753
limits of Kotpad Paragana as settled in
1863,
but the terms whereof were subsequently modified in
1901-the Kotpad Paragana, though it had separate
existence at the time of the permanent settlement of
the Jeypore Zamindari in 1803, had become part of
the said Zamindari by subsequent events, the details
whereof do not concern us at this stage ; (iii) villages
covered by Appeals Nos. 14 'i, 14Ji, lii2, 153 and 156
of 1962 in regard to which there is a dispute whether
these villages formed part of Kotpad Paragana or of
the Jeypore Zamindari as originally settled in 1803.
The case of the appellants is that the said
villa~es which formed part of the origihal Jeypore
Zammdari, are pre-settlement inams which were excluded from the permanent settlement ; and, as they
were neither confirmed nor recognized by the British
Government, they were not "estates'' within the
mea.ning of s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Act and therefore not liable to be abolished under the Orissa
Estates Abolition Act, Hlfi2, hereinafter called the
Orissa Act. Their contention in regard
to the
villages forming part of Kotpad Paragana is the same,
namely, that the villages forming part of the said
Paragana were grants made before the said Paragana
was permanently settled in 1863, and, as they were
not confirmed or recognized by the British Government, they were also not "estates" within the mean·
ing of the said section.
The State pleaded that the
said villages, whether they formed part of the original
Jeypore Zamindari or of Kotpacl Paragana, were
included in the assets of the said Zamindari or the
Paragana at the time of their respective settlements
and, therefore, they were "estates" within the meaning of either s. 3(2)(a) or 3(2)(e) of the Madras Act
and were rightly abolished by the State. They further
contended that :he third group of villages formed
part of the original Jeypore Zamindari, and that if
the said villages formed part of Kotpad Paragana it
would not make any difference in the legal position,
1'62
r.v.v. NtJttsi11t"'1n
••
Stot1 of O""•
Sdbal!lo, J.
1962
T;V.V. Narashnhiun
••
St•le of Orissa
Subba Rao, J.
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
as the permanent settlement of that Paragana was
not made under ·Regulation XXV of 1802, and as
such no land was excluded from its assets at the time
of the settlement. To put it differently, their case is
that in the settlement of Kotpad Paragana, the said
villages were included in its assets.
The High Court did not give the d1=cision on
disputed facts but assumed the correctness of the
appellants' case, namely, that the first group of
villages were pre-settlement inams within the geographical limits of Jeypore Zamindari, as originally
settled in 1803, and that the second and third groups
of villages were pre-settlement inams situated in
Kotpad Paragana as settled in 1863, and held that,
as the said villages were recognized by the British
Government within the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) of the
Madras Act, they were "estates" liable to be abolished under the Orissa Act.
On that finding the
High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants. Hence the appeals.
Section 3(2) of the Madras Act reads :
"Estate" means-
(d) any inam village of which the grant h'as
been made, confirmed or recognised by the
British Government, notwithstanding that
subsequent to the grant, the village has
been partitioned among the grantees or the
successors in
title
of the grantee or
grantees.
Mr. A. V.
Viswanatha Sastri,
learned counsel
for the appellants, contends that the expression
"confirmed" in the said cl. (d) of s. 3(2) refers to those
inams which were confirmed bv the Inam Commissioner, after investigation of titles, giving up the
reversionary rights of the Government and issuing
free-hold title deeds to the inamdars; and the
expression "recognized", to those ca~es of inams whose
titles were jnvestigated by the Government but the
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
755
Government, for one reason or other, did not choose
to issue title deeds but recognised the titles by some
overt act. In other words, the expression "recognised"
would only apply to such an inam the grantees'
titles or possession whereof could be traced to some
act of the Government done pursuant to the inam
inquiry held in respect of the said titles.
Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanyal,
agrees with Mr. Viswanatha S astri in regard to the
meaning of the word "confirmed", but advances the
contention that in regard to pre-settlement inams,
even the inaction of the Government under certain
circumstances amounts to "recognition" of fhe said
inams.
A brief historical account of classes of inams
covered by cl. (d) of s. 3(2) of the Madras Act may
be useful in appreciating its scope.
The British
Government was confronted with three classes of
grants, namely, (i) those grants made by Hindu or
Muslim Kings or under their authority, (ii) grants
made by British Government, and (iii) unauthorised
alienations, i.e., those made by persons who had no
authority to make grants.
For the purpose of ascer-
·taining the title of unauthorised alienees Regulation
XXXI of 1802 was passed whereunder rules were
made for investigating into the titles of such alienees
.and for fixing the assessment thereon. The preamble
to the Regulation expressly recognized the Badshahi
grants i.e., grants made by kings.
Section 2 of the
said Regulation exempted from its operation grants
made in certain districts before .specified dates. The
Regulat!on authorised the Collectors to take suitable
steps for resuming such lands, but, for one reason or
other, the said Regulation was not implemented in
the manner conceived by its authors. In 1859 ,another
serious attempt was made by the Government by issuing Inam Rules for investigating the titles of various
inamdars. Under these rules an lnam commissioner was
appointed, who made an investigation in regard to tJ:i,e
1962
T.V. V. Narasimhf111
v.
Slate of Orissa
Subba Rao, J.
1962
~.v.v . .f\'arasimhom
v.
Stal1 of Orissa
Subba Rao, J.
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP.
various inams in the State and issued title deeds. But
some areas were not covered by the enquiry and no
enquiry was made in regard to the inams in these
areas ; c1•cn in the areas covered by the enquiry,
though titles were ascertained, the Government did
not enfranchise some inams, but indicated its intention to continue them.
A lucid and precise exposition of this historv is found in the valuable commentary of Vedanta~hari on the Madras Estates Land
Act, at p. 51.
It would be seen from the history that when
the Act of l f)08 was passed there were five classes of
grants of whole inam villages, namely, (i) villages
granted by the British Government; (ii) villages
granted by the previons rulers or persons under their
authority; (iii) villages in the possession of unauthorizer! alienees whose titles had been ascertained and
confirmed by the British Government; (iv) villages in
the possession of 11nauthoriscrl alianees whose titles
were recognized by the said Government; and (v)
villages in the possession of unauthorized alienees
whose titles
were not recognized by the British
Government either because no inquiry in regard to
titles was made or because even if such an inquiry
was made the Government, for one reason or other,
did not choose to recognize them.
In this context what is the appropriate connotation of the word "recognized" ins. 3(2)(d) of the
Madras Act.
The decisions cited at the Bar throw
some light on the meaning of ·the said word. In
Secretary of St(&te for India v. Bhanamurthy ('), a
division Bench of the Madras High Court had to
consider the scope of the word "continued" in s. 17
of the Madras Act II of 1894. Under that section
the Go·,crnment had the right of resumption of a
Karnarn St'.rvicc Iuarn if the said inam was granted
or continued
by the State.
Though the word
"recognized" was not in the section, some of the
(I) (1912) U M.L.J. 538, 540.
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
757
observations in the judgment can usefully be extracted. In 1860 when the inam inquiry was held, though
the village was confirmed to the Agraharamdar, the
Government did not interfere l'lith the rights of the
persons holding the Karnam Service Inams situated
in that Agraharam. The Special Assistant stated in
his report that the Government did not interfere with
the subordinate tenures though the right of the holder
to them was unquestionable and must be respected
by the Agraharamdar, but he did not consider it
necessary to decide that question.
Sundara Aiyar,
J., speaking for the Court, observed :
"The result is that in 1860 the Government
merely left the rights of the Karnams, if they
had any, undisturbed. We cannot hold that
there was any act done by Government which
could be relied on by the Karnams as a recognition or confirmation of their rights".
Later on, the learned Judge proceeded to state :
"The principle adopted appears to me to be that
in order that Government may have the right of
resumption, the right to the land must either
have in the first instance emanated from
Government or the continuance of the right
must have been due to an act of Government.
At any rate there must have been recognition
by Government of the right which could be set
up by the holder in support of his possession."
This decision is an authority for the position that
mere inactivity or even leaving open the question for
future decision by Government does not amount to a
recognition of the right of an inamdar to hold possession.
Another division Bench of the Madras High
Court in Sam v. llamalinga Muda.liar (1), though it
was concerned with the interpretation of the expression "unsettled jaghirs" ins. 3(2)(c) of the Madras
Estates Land Act, 1908, made some useful observations on the meaning of the word "recognized".
(I) (1916) I.L.R. 40 Mod. 61*, 670.
1962
T.V.V. Naratimh•
v.
State of OrUsa
Subba Rao, J,
1962
1 , V. V. Narosimlram
v.
~late of Oris.ra
Subbo Rco1 J.
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J., observed :
"It is difficult to . assign a precise meaning to
the word "recognized" whether mere acquiescence is enough or whether something more is
required is not clear.
I should be inclined to
think that recognition implies something more
than mere acquiescence, rnmething done by the
Government, as, for instance, by acceptance of
service, jodi, etc."
This decision also insists upon an overt act by the
Government in recognition of an inamdar's title. The
decision in Pitchaya v. Secremry of Smte (1) does
not support the contention of the respondent.
That
was also a case under s. 17 of the Madras Proprietary
Estates Village Services Act (2 of 1894). There, lands
at the inception of the grant were village service inams.
Under s. 4 of Regulation XXV of 1802 they were excluded from the assets of the zamindari at the time of
permanent settlement. Regulation XXIX ofl802 enabled the Government to obtain directly the services
from the karnams who were previously under the control of the zamindars. Act 2of1894 enabled the Government to fix wages for the said office.
As salaries
were fixed for the karnams who were enjoying the
land in lieu of their services, the Government directed
the enfranchisement of the said lands. On the said
facts the Court held that as the Government continued
the said inams within the meaning of s. 17, it could
enfranchise them.
Strong reliance was placed upon
the following observations made by the learned Jupges
in considering the decision in Secremry of St,ate v.
Chin111Jpragada Bhanumurty (') :
"He (Sundara Aiyar, J.) seems to have been
inclined to the view that some ovf!rt act must
be shown to have been done by the Government continuing the land in enjoyment of the
office-holder. as remuneration for .loing the
.
"
SCI"VlCCS.
0) A.1.R. 19'l0 Mod. 7"8, 479.
(2) (1912) 24 M,L.J. 5111, 540.
I s.c.:R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
759
Then the learned Judges proceeded to state :
"If the learnedJudge intended to lay down that
the facts that the land was originally service
inam; that it was excluded from the assets of
the zamindar in 1802, and that subsequently the
Government took service from the karnam and
allowed him to enjoy the property, would not
enable a Court of law to draw the inference
that there has been a continuance of the grant
within s. 17 of Act 2 of 1894, we are unable to
agree with him."
It will be seen that this case did not lay down that
mere inaction would amount to recognition or
continuance; but on the facts, as there was a clear
overt act 011 the part of the Government in accepting
the services of the karnams, the learned Judges held
that there was such a continuance. In Rmnalinga
Mudali v. Ranw.swami Ayyar (1), a division Bench
of the same High Court held that a particular inam
must be taken to have been recognized by the Government in view of Regulation 31 of 1802. Venkatasubba
Rao, J., observed at p. 543 that the grant was not a
grant made by a previous zamindar but was a royal
or badshahi grant and that by the preamble to
Madras Regulation 31 of 1802 all royal grants must
be deemed to have been recognized.
A perusal of
that preamble clearly shows that such grants were
expressly recognized by the Government. This is a
case where there was an express statutory recognition.
In that case apart from any inaction there was
an admission made by a Committee appointed by
the State of the holders' title to the inam, but the
court preferred to base its decision on the Madras
Regulation 31 of 1802. We have not been able
to discover, nor the learned counsel for the respondent
has been able to point out, any observations in the
judgments of either of the two learned Judges either
(I) A. I, II.. 1929 Mad. 529.
1962
T.V. V. NartUim!wm
v.
Slate of Orissa
Subba RM, J.
I:nV.,-V.,JfarasimhrJm
,v.
,, St.160/ Oris.a
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
expressly stating or even indicating their preference
to the view that mere inaction would amount to
recogmtion.
A full Bench of the Madras High
Court had to consider in Jfantravadi Bhavanarayana
v. · MerWJU Venkatadu (1)
an altogether different
question, namely, whether the existence of minor
inams already granted before the grant of the village
would make it anytheless of a grant of the whole
village. In the course of the judgment, one of the
learned Judges, Venkatarama Ayyar, J., incidentally
observed:
"It will be noticed that for purposes of the
section, recognition of the grant of an entire
· village inam stands on the same footing as its
confirmation; and there is authority that some
recognition could be iJilplied from conduct and
even from inaction : vide Rarnalinga Mudali
v.
Ramaswarni Ayyar (')".
But, as we have pointed out, this passage does not
find any support in that judgment. A
division
Bench of the Orissa High Court inP. V. Narayana
Rao v. State of Orissa (8). on a consideration of the
case law on the subject came to. the conclusion that
mere inaction or acquiescence on the part of the
Government would constitute recognition within the
meaning of s. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Act. But the
facts of that case disclose that the Government
expressly
recognized the title of
the
inamdar.
Indeed, this Court in appeal against that judgment
based its conclusion on that fact.
The said judg·
ment of this Court was given in Civil Appeals Nos.
47 and 48 of 1960 on November 20, 1961. Therein
this Court observed :-
"It cannot however be disputed that confirmation by the Inam Commissioner and the
issue of an. inam title-deed is not the only method
by which a pre-British grant
would be
(1) lo L. R. 1954 Mad. 116,152.
(2) A. I. R, 1929 Mad, 529.
(S)I. L. R. [ 1956) Cuttack MB.
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
761
"confirmed" or "recognised". In the present case
the reason for the exclusion of this village from
the scope of the Inam enquiry is apparent from
the records produced.
At the time of the inam
settlement there appears to have been a controversy as to whether the reversionary right in
regard to the inam vested in the Government
or in the zamindar, and Government specifically
directed the exclusion of this village from the
inam enquiry, passing an order in the course of
which they stated :
"That they resolved to instruct the Inam
Commissioner not to interfere with these
villages and to waive their claim to them
on
the
ground
of expediency
and
grace, "-the right which they
waived
being their reversionary right to the
.
,,
mam.
"We consider this a sufficient "recognition"
of the grant as to bring this village within
the
definition of an "estate"
within
s.3(2)(d) of the Estates Land Act."
It would be seen from the said passage that the
Government initiated an lnam enquiry in respect of
the title of the inamdar, but, in view of the dispute
raised by the zamindar, clearly waived its. right to
the said reversion; by so doing, it expressly recognized the title of the Inamdar to hold under the zamindar. This Court in that case has not expressed any
opinion on the wide proposition
accepted by the
High Court, but has preferred to base its judgment
on an express recognition of the title of the Inamdar.
Another judgment of a division Bench of the Orissa
High Court has been brought to our notice and it is
said that the said decision expressed a contrary view.
but the later decision had not even adverted to it.
In that case the only evidence in support of the
1962
T.V.V. }\farasimham
v.
State of Orissa
Subba Rao, J,
1962
T. V. V. Narasimham
v.
Stal~ of Orisso
Subha Rao, J.
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
contention ofrecognition adduced was that the Collector
realized cess from the zamindar in respect of the
inams in question; there was no other evidence in
support of that "recognition". The Court held that
there was absolutely ·no evidence to show that the
inam grant was recognised by the British Government. This decision, though it did not expressly say
that inaction could not amount to recognition impliedly it did not accept such a contention or otherwise it would have held that there was recognition of
the inam by the Government within the meaning of
that section. This decision does not carry the matter
further.
The foregoing discussion leads us to the follow-
.iilg conclusion; recognition signifies an admission or
an acknowledgment of something existing before. To
recognize is to take congnizance of a fact.
It implies
an overt act on the part of the person taking· such
cognizance. "Recognition" is, therefore, an acknowledgment by the Government of the title of a grantee
expressly or by some unequevocal act on its part.
Acquiescence in the context of certain surrounding
circumstances may amount to recognition, but it must
be such as to lead to that inevitable conclusion .. Mere
inaction dehors such compelling circumstances cannot
amount to recognition within the meaning of the
section.
Now coming to the merits of the case, we shall
first deal with the group of villages admittedly lying
within the geographical limits of Jeypore zamindari,
a~ originally settled in 1803. It appears that the
Inam Commission appointed by the Government in
1862 called for and obtained from the zamindar a
statement of pre-settlement and post-settlement inams
within the geographical limits of the zamindari; but
it did not make anv inquiry in regard thereto. But
in the year 1907 the Government of Madras directed
an inquiry of the inams in the Jeypore zamindari by
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
763
a Special Deputy Collector by name
Meenakshisundaram Pillai. In the inquiry held by him the
zamindar did not put forward his claim.
His report
was not full or complete as it should be and it was
simply recorded by the Government in its order dated
February 25, 1910.. The Government again by its
order dated November 16, 1910, directed another
officer named Burkitt to make a further or detailed
inquiry into the inams of Jeypore zamindari, and he
submitted his report to the Government which was
recorded by it in its order dated May 19, 1914. On
the basis of the said report the Government gave
notice to the Maharaja of Jeypore to show cause
why the said villages found to be pre-settlement inams
by Burkitt should not be enfranchised. The Maharaja
submitted his objections claiming that all the said
villages formed part of his zamindari and the Government had no right of reversion therein. On Novem·
ber 1, 1919, the Government issued the following
order No. 2489:
"The Board of Revenue is informed that the
Government have on re-consideration decided
to take no further action in connection with the
question of the settlement of r,re-settlement
inams in the Jeypore Zamindary.'
In this context the relevant records, namely the reports
of Meenakshisundaram Pillai and Burkitt and the
objections filed by the Maharaja were not filed in
the High Court. If they had been produced, as they
should have been, the High Court and this Court
would have been in a better position to appreciate
the situation. But the aforesaid facts were given in
the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in
O.J.C. No. 68 of 1954 and the correctness of those
facts are not disputed before us.
From the foregoing
narration, the factual and legal posit.)n was this :
The inamdars were holding the said inams under
grants made by the Jeypore Maharaja prior to 1803.
1962
T.V.V. }larasimham
v.
Stat• of Oriua
S,ihba Rao. J,
1962
IT. V. V. Na1asimham
v.
State of Orissa
Subba Rao, J.
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i963] SUPP.
The Government claimed reversionary rights therein
on the basis that these were pre-settlement inams not
included ill the assets of the zamindari at the time of
the permanent settlement. The Maharaja claimed
that the said villages were part of his zamindari i.e.,
they were included in the assets of the zamindari at
the time of the permanent settlement. The Government presumably accepted that claim by deciding not
to take further action in connection with the settlement of the pre-settlement inams of the Jeypore
zamindari.
It is not possible to accept the contention
that there was only inaction on the part of the
Government in the aforesaid circumstances. As there
were conflicting claims between the Maharaja and
the Government, and by withdrawing further action,
the Government accepted the claim of the Maharaja,
namely, that the Inamdars were holding the inams
as under-tenure holders under the zamindar.
This
was a clear recognition of the Inamdars' title to hold
under the :i:amindar. We agree with the High Court
that the Government "recognized" the said grants
within the meaning of s. 3(2) of the Madras Act.
As regards the second and the third groups of
villages there is nothing on the record which discloses
any recognition by the Government of the grants of
the said inam villages. It does not appear that the
Government had directed any inquiry into the titles
of the said inams or did any act dehors the inquiry
to recognize the said title. We find it very difficult
to agree with the High Court that mere inaction on
the part of the Government amounts to recognition of
the grants in favour of the Inamdars. But the learned Additional Solicitor-General contends that the
Inam Rules framed by the Government providing
for an inquiry, and particularly the rule directing the
confirmation of title on the basis of possession, would
amount to recognition within the meaning of s.3(2)(d)
of the Madras Act. We cannot accept this contention.
Inam Rules were framed, by the Government
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
765
in 1859 for investigating into the titles of various
inamda~ and for enfranchising inams.
These rules
proprio vigore .did not confer title on, or recognize
title of, any inamdar. They lay down only a procedure for ascertaining the titles in those areas where
an inquiry was held for the purposes of investigation
of titles and confirmation thereof. In this case no
such inquiry appears to have been held in respect of
Korpad Paragana.
These rules do not therefore help
the State. In our view the High Court went wrong
in holding that the British Government recognized
the said inams.
Lastly the learned Additional Solicitior-General
contended that a grant of pre-settlement inam villages
which did not fall within the definition of an "estat~"
iD s. 3(2}(d) of the Madras Act would be an 'estate'
within the d<'finition of that expression ins. :!(g) of
the Orissa Act and therefore the Government validity
issued the notifications under s. 3(i) of the Orissa Act
abolishing the aforesaid villages not recognized by the
Government. This contention has been raised for the
first time before us.
The contention raised is not a
pure question of law, but depends upon the proof of
the conditions laid down in the said cl.(g) of s.2 of
the Orissa Act. We do not think we are justified in
allowing the respondent to raise a plea of mixed
question of fact and law for the first time before us.
There must have been very good reasons for the State
not raising this extreme contention in the High
Court.
We should not be understood to have expressed our opinion one way or the other on this
question.
In the result the Appeals Nos. 150, 151 and
155 are dismissed with costs, (one hearing fee}; but
unfortunately the rest of the appeals cannot now be
finally disposed of as we have already indicated, the
High Court did not give any findings on disputed
questions of fact. We cannot but observe that these
1962
T.V.V .. Narasimham
v.
Stat10J01issa
Suhha Rao, J.
1962
, f'.V. Narasimham
v.
Slit• of Orino
Subba Rao, J.
1962
October, 25.
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP.
appeals belong to that class of cases where the High
Court should have given definite findings on all the
issues,
!or that would have prevented the
unnecessary prolongation of this litigation and would
have also enabled us to dispose of these appeals
finally and more satisfactorily. But in the events
that have happened we have no option but to set
aside the judgment of the High Court and remand
the said appeals to it for disposal on the other
questions of fact and law raised therein. Costs of
the said appeals will abide the result of the proceedings in the High Court.
Appeals Nos. 147 to 149, 152 to 154, 156 and
157 remanded. Appeals Nos.
150, 151 and 155
d·ismissed.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA\,
BOMBAY CITY I, BOMBAY
v.
AFCO (P) LTD., BOMBAY
u. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and
j. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Income Tax-Rebate-Claim by private company for
n·lmtc-"Claim to which the provisions of 8. 23A of the Incometax .. Jct cannot be 'inade applicahle"-lndian lncome-f,ax Act,
1922 (ll of In2.~), s. 23-A-Finance Act, 1955 ( 15 of 19.55),
8. 2, Sch. I: fJrirt I, !tern JJ.
Fer the year of account ending March 31, 1.955, the
appellant, a private limited company, e_a~ned a total income of
Rs. 49,843.
The company declared a d1V1dend of Rs. 11,712
ou July 13, 1955, and before the close of the year of assessment
1955-56 declared an additional dividend of Rs. 5,612, thereby
rlistrihuting in the aggregate dividend which was not less than
-~':