# BALMADIES PLANT.£\TIONS LTD. & ANR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 258
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-04-19
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, J. M. Shelat, A. N. Ray, I. D. Dua, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/balmadies-plant-tions-ltd-anr-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-5785
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1951)-Artlc/e 31A 2(a) (I) and .(111)-EstateFortsts In Janmam Lands-Requirement of cl. (ill) also need not be satis·
fied-Agrarlan Reform-Acquisition of forests
In
lanmam
landsMere transfer of ownership or augmentation of resource~ oj the State not
sufficient to show object of agrarian reform.
Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act, 1969 (Act 24 of 1969)-Constitutionality-Resettlemenl of 1926lf has the effect of conversion into ryotwari lands.
A
B.
c
The appellants and the petitioners challenged the vires of the Gudalur
Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969,
D
on the ground that it was violative of articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Con-
·
stitution.
Theff case was that their lands in the Gudalur Taluk, in the
State of Tamil Nadu, were prev'ously Janmam estates, but, subsequently
became ryotwari estates, especially after the Resettlement of 1926, •and
as such, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to tb<Se lands; that
so far as the forest areas in the Jan111ani lands-in question were concern ..
ed they did. not constitute "estate"; and that the acquisition of the lands
was not for implementing agrarian reform• and, therefore, did not get
F.
the protection of article 31A.
HELD :
that the pro\isions of s. 3 of the Act in so far as
they
related to the transfer of forests in Janmam estates to the government
were not protected by article 3 IA. and, being violative of the Constitution
had to be struck down; and that the vire.< of the Act in other respects had
to be upheld.
(i) The effect of the Resettlement of 1926 was to retain the lanmam
estates and not to abolish the same or to convert them into ryotwari estates. There was merely a change of nomenclature. Government Janmam
land6 were caJied the new hold.ings while private
Janmam
lands were
called the old holdings.
In respect of Janmabhogam
(Janmi's
share)
relating to government Janmam lands, the order further directed that the
amount to be paid to the government should include both the taram assessment and Janmabhogam. It is difficult to infer from theso that Janmam
rights in the lands in question were extinguished
and
converted into
ryotwari estates. The use of the word Janmabhogam, on the contrary,
indicates that the rights of .Tenmis were kept in tact. [271BJ
Kottarathil Kochuni and Others '" The State of Madras and Others,
[1960] 3 S.CR. 887, Karimbil Kunhilkoman v. State of Kera/a, [1962] 1
Supp. S. C.R. 847 and Secretary of State v. Ashtamurthi, I.LR. f3 Madras
89. referred to.
The grant of a right of relinquishment to a Janmi would not by itself
convert jt~nmam rights in the lands into ryotwari estate.
[272A-Bl
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BALMh.DIES PLANTATIONS LTD. V. TAMIL NADU
259
(Khanna, J.)
Further, apart from the lands in question, there are no Janmam estates
in the State of Tamil Nadu (Maclras). To hold that the Janmam rights
in the lands ceased to exist after the Resettlement of 1926 would have
the effect of rendering the words, in clause
(2) (a) (i) of article 31A,
wherein there is a reference to Janmam rights in the State of Madras
meaningless and without any purpose. [272·D)
(ii) As Janmam lands fall under clause (2) (a) (i) of article 31A
it is not essential to snow that the requirements of clause (2)(a) (iii) too
arc satisfied for such lands and it would make no
difference
whether
forests are a part of the Janmam lanes. All lands which are part of a
Janmam estate of a Janmi in the State of Madras and Kerala would constitute "estate" as mentioned in Clause (2) (a) (i) of Article 3 lA. [273-E]
(iii) The 'object and general scheme of the Act is to abolish
intermediaries between the state and the cultivator and to help the actual cultivator by giving him the status of directs relationship between himself and
the Sr.le. The Act. as such. in its broad outlines, &hould be held to be
a measure of agrarian reform and· woulc! consequently be protected by
article 3 lA of the Constitution. The

## Text

_Characters 0–39,779 of 49,730. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39779 for what follows._

258
BALMADIES PLANT.£\TIONS LTD. & ANR.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
April 19, 1972
(with connected appeals)
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA AND
H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1951)-Artlc/e 31A 2(a) (I) and .(111)-EstateFortsts In Janmam Lands-Requirement of cl. (ill) also need not be satis·
fied-Agrarlan Reform-Acquisition of forests
In
lanmam
landsMere transfer of ownership or augmentation of resource~ oj the State not
sufficient to show object of agrarian reform.
Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act, 1969 (Act 24 of 1969)-Constitutionality-Resettlemenl of 1926lf has the effect of conversion into ryotwari lands.
A
B.
c
The appellants and the petitioners challenged the vires of the Gudalur
Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969,
D
on the ground that it was violative of articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Con-
·
stitution.
Theff case was that their lands in the Gudalur Taluk, in the
State of Tamil Nadu, were prev'ously Janmam estates, but, subsequently
became ryotwari estates, especially after the Resettlement of 1926, •and
as such, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to tb<Se lands; that
so far as the forest areas in the Jan111ani lands-in question were concern ..
ed they did. not constitute "estate"; and that the acquisition of the lands
was not for implementing agrarian reform• and, therefore, did not get
F.
the protection of article 31A.
HELD :
that the pro\isions of s. 3 of the Act in so far as
they
related to the transfer of forests in Janmam estates to the government
were not protected by article 3 IA. and, being violative of the Constitution
had to be struck down; and that the vire.< of the Act in other respects had
to be upheld.
(i) The effect of the Resettlement of 1926 was to retain the lanmam
estates and not to abolish the same or to convert them into ryotwari estates. There was merely a change of nomenclature. Government Janmam
land6 were caJied the new hold.ings while private
Janmam
lands were
called the old holdings.
In respect of Janmabhogam
(Janmi's
share)
relating to government Janmam lands, the order further directed that the
amount to be paid to the government should include both the taram assessment and Janmabhogam. It is difficult to infer from theso that Janmam
rights in the lands in question were extinguished
and
converted into
ryotwari estates. The use of the word Janmabhogam, on the contrary,
indicates that the rights of .Tenmis were kept in tact. [271BJ
Kottarathil Kochuni and Others '" The State of Madras and Others,
[1960] 3 S.CR. 887, Karimbil Kunhilkoman v. State of Kera/a, [1962] 1
Supp. S. C.R. 847 and Secretary of State v. Ashtamurthi, I.LR. f3 Madras
89. referred to.
The grant of a right of relinquishment to a Janmi would not by itself
convert jt~nmam rights in the lands into ryotwari estate.
[272A-Bl
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BALMh.DIES PLANTATIONS LTD. V. TAMIL NADU
259
(Khanna, J.)
Further, apart from the lands in question, there are no Janmam estates
in the State of Tamil Nadu (Maclras). To hold that the Janmam rights
in the lands ceased to exist after the Resettlement of 1926 would have
the effect of rendering the words, in clause
(2) (a) (i) of article 31A,
wherein there is a reference to Janmam rights in the State of Madras
meaningless and without any purpose. [272·D)
(ii) As Janmam lands fall under clause (2) (a) (i) of article 31A
it is not essential to snow that the requirements of clause (2)(a) (iii) too
arc satisfied for such lands and it would make no
difference
whether
forests are a part of the Janmam lanes. All lands which are part of a
Janmam estate of a Janmi in the State of Madras and Kerala would constitute "estate" as mentioned in Clause (2) (a) (i) of Article 3 lA. [273-E]
(iii) The 'object and general scheme of the Act is to abolish
intermediaries between the state and the cultivator and to help the actual cultivator by giving him the status of directs relationship between himself and
the Sr.le. The Act. as such. in its broad outlines, &hould be held to be
a measure of agrarian reform and· woulc! consequently be protected by
article 3 lA of the Constitution. Therefore, it is immune from attack on
the ground of bdng violative of articles 14, 19 or 31. [274-A]
. Vajraye/u Madaliar v. Special
Deputy
Collector,
Madras &
A.nr.
[1965) 1 S.C.R. 614, referred to.
(iv) But, the acquisition of forests in Janmam estates is not in furtherence of the objective of agrarian reform, and, as such, is not protected
by Art. 3 !A. In the absence of anything in the Act to show the purpose
for which the forests are to be used by the Government, it cannot be
said that the acquisition of the forests in Janmam land would be for a
purpose related to agrarian reform.
The mere fact that the ownership
of forests would stand transferred. to the State would not .show that the
object of the transfer is to bring about agrarian reform. Augmenting the
resources of the State by itself. and in the absence of anything more regarding the purpose or utili•ation of those resources cannot be held to be
a measure of agrarian reform.
There is no material on the record to
indicate that the transfer of forests from the Janmi to the Governmen•
is linked in any way with a scheme of agrarian reform or betterment of
village ceremony. [274-H)
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raia Anand Brahma, [1967] 1 S.C.R. 362,
held inapplicable.
ORIGINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ·Petition No.
373 of 1970.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement
of the Fundamental Rights with Civil Appeals Nos. 2211 and 2212
of 1970 and 85 to 91of1971.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated October 26, 1970
of •lie Madras High Courtin Writ Petitions Nos. 64, 117, 118, 119,
120, 121, 185, 136 and 220 of 1970 respectively.
M. C. Chagla and K. Jayararn, for the petitioners (in W.P.
No. 373 of 1970).
M. Natesan, Sardar Bahadur Saharya, K. Jayaram and Yougindra Khushalani, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 2211of1970).
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R.
M. C. Setalvad and K. J1ryaram, for the appellant (in C.A. No.
2212 of 1970).
K. liryaram, for the appellants (in C.As. Nos. 85 to 91
of
1971).
S. Govind Swaminathan, Advocate-General for the State of
Tamil Nadu, S. Mohan, A. V. Rangam, A. Subhashini and N. S.
Sivan, for the respondent (in all the matters).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Khanna, J.
The Gudalur Janmam Estates Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (Act No. 24 of 1969),
hereinafter referred to as the Act, received the assent of the President on December 6, 1969, after it had been er.acted by the
legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu.
It was thereafter published
in the gazette on December 17, 1969.
The Act extends to the
Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiris district and applies to all janmam
estates.
It is to come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint.
This Court stayed the issue
of the notification and, as such, no notification has so far been
issued.
Nine petitions under a,rticle 226 of the Constitution of India
were filed in the Madras High Court challenging the vires of the
Act on the ground that.it was violative of articles 14, 19 and 31
of the Constitution.
The case of the petitioners was that their
lands in the Gudalur taluk were previously janniam estates but
subsequently became ryotwari estates, especially afier the resettlement of 1926 and, as such, the provisions of the Act were not
applicable to those lands.
The Act, it was stated, did not get the
protection of article 31A of the Constitutipn.
One of the above
petitions was filed by O'Valley Estate Ltd.
This petitioner had
taken on lease an estate comprising about 2,000 acres of land in
the 19th century 'from the Nilambur Kovilakam Who was the pro-.
prietor of that land besides some other land.
The Company
(O'Valley Estate Ltd.) has a plantation on~ estate-and is engaged in cultivatio.n and manufacturing of tea and other plantation
products.
The Nilambur Kovilakam was the petitioner in another
petition.
The nine petitions were resisted by the State of Tamil Nadu
on the gtoiind that the lands in· question were janmam estates and
had retained that character till the passing of the Act.
The State
of Tamil Nadu also invoked the protection of article 31A of the
Constitution.
The nine petitions were dismissed by the Madras
Hieb Court by a common judgn:ent given in the petition filed by
O'Va!ley Estate Ltd~ It was held that the lands were janmam
estates and had not lost that character.
The Act was held to be
A
B
c
D
H
c
D
l!ALMADIES PLANTATIONS LTD, v. TAMIL NADU
261
(Khanna, I.)
protected by article 3 lA of the Constitution.
Civil appeals Nos.
2211 and 2212 of 1970 and Nos. 85 to 91of1971 have been filed
against the above judgment of the High Court.
Writ petition No. 373 of 1970 has been filed under article 32
of the Constitution by Balmadies Plantations Ltd. and its shareholder Dayanand Bansilal Saxena challen&ing the vires of the Act
N! tlie ground that it is violative of articles 14, 19 and 31 of the
Constitution and is not protected by article 3 lA. According to
the petitiom:r, the janmam estates which are now intended to be
abolished by the Act had been converted into ryotwari estates.
The purpose of the Act, it is further stated, is not to bring about
agrarian reform.
The petitioner company in this case had taken
on lease 170.78 hectares from the Nilambur Kovilakam, the appellant in civil appeal No. 2211 of 1970, in the 19th century.
Out
of the above area, 143.22 hectares is under coffee plantation,
while the rest of the land consists of forests and waste land.
The writ petition bas been resisted by the State of Tamil Nadu
and the affidavit of Shri A. S. Venkataraman, Additional Secretary
has been filed in opposition to the petition.
The respondent has
controverted the different grounds ta.ken by the petitioner.
Gudalur taluk, it may be stated, comprises 12 villages.
The
said taluk was origiIJ.ally part of Malabar district which now
forms part of Kerala State.
O'V alley village was transferred to
E
the Nilgiris in 1873 and the other eleven villages were transferred
in 1877.
Or\ginally the janmis in Malabar were absolute proprietors of the land and did not pay land revenue.
After Malabar
was annexed by the British in the beginning of the 19th century,
the janmis conceded the liability to pay land revenue.
According
to the case set up by the petitioner-appellants, there was a gradual
F
G
H
orision of the rights of janmis in the lands in q.iestion and the
janmam estates becanre ryotwari estates after the resettlement of
1926.
As such, the Act, it is submitted, does not apply to the
lands in dispute.
Before dealing with this aspect of the matter, it
would be pertinent to refer to the different provisions of the Act.
Sec~on 2 of the Act contains the various definitions.
Relevant
clauses of ·that section read as under :
"S. 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
·
· .
·
(I ) all expressions defined in the Malabar Tenancy
Act sJiall have the same respective meanings as in that
Act with the modifications, if any, made by this Act;
(2) "appointed day" means the date appointed by
the Government under sub-section ( 4) of section 1;
( 4) "forest" includes waste or arable land, containing trees, sh;-ubs or reeds.
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.k.
Explanation.-A forest shall not cease to be such
by reason only of the fact that, in a portion thereof,
trees, shrubs or reeds are felled, or lands are cultivated,
or rocks, roads, tanks, rivers or the like exist;
( 6) "janmam estate" means any parcel or parcels
of land included in the holding of janmi;
( 7) "janmi" means a person entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land and includes a trustee in
respect thereof;
( 9) "plantation crop" means tea, coffee,
rubber,
A
B
cinchona or cardamom;
C
( 11) "tenant" means a verumpattamdar as defined
in sub-clause (a) of clause ( 29) of section 3 of the
Malabar Tenancy Act;"
'
Section 3 of the Act deals with the vesting of janmam estates in
Government, and reads as under :
D
"3. Vesting of janmam estates, etc., in Government.-With effect on and from the appointed day and
save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act-
( a) the Malabar Tenancy Act, the Malabar Land
Registration Act, 1895 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1896),
the Gudalur Compensation for Tenants Improvements
Act, 1931 (Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1931) and all
other enactments applicable k> janmam estates as such,
shall be deemed to have been repealed in their application to j anmam estates;
(b) every janmam estate including all communal
lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands,
forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams,
tanks and irrigation works, fisheries, and ferries situated
within the boundaries thereof shall stand transferred to
the Government and vest in them free of all incumbrances, and the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act,
1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864), the Tamil Nadu
Irrigation Cess Act, 1865 (Tamil Nadu Act VII qf
1865), the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection
Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955), the Tamil
Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent)
Act, 1956 (Tamil Nadu Act XXIV of 1956) and all
other enactments applicable to ryotwari lands shall apply
to the janmam estate;
E
F
G
B
.A
/ c
E
F
G
H
BALMADIES PLANTATIONS LTD. V. TAMIL NADU
263
(Khanna, J.)
( c) all rights and interests created by the janmi in
or over his janmam estate before the appointed day shall
as against the Government cease and determine;
(d) the Government may,
after
removing any
obstruction that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the janmam estate and all accounts,
registers,
pattas, muchilikas, maps, plans and other documents
relating to the janmam estate which the Government may
require for the administration thereof;
Provided that the Government shall not dispossess
any person of any land in the janmam estate in respect
of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to
a ryotwari patta pending the decision of the appropriate authority under this Act as to whether such person is entitled to such patta;
( e) the janmi and any other person whose rights
stand transferred under clause (b) or cease and determine under clause ( c) shall be entitled only to such
rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on
him by or under this Act;
(f) the relationship of janmi and tenant, shall as
between them, be extinguished; and
(g) any rights and privileges which may have accrued in the janmam estate to any person before the appointed day against the janmi shall cease and determine and
shall not be enforceable against the Government or
against the janmi and every such person shall be entitled
only to such 1 ;ghts and privileges as are recognised or
conferred on him by or under this Act."
According to section 8, the janmi shall with effect on and from
the appointed day be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all
lands proved to have been cultivated by the janmi himself, or by
the members of his. tarwad, tavazhi, illom or family or by his own
servants or by hired labour with his own or hired stock in the
ordinary course of husbandry for a continuous period of three
agricultural years immediately before the 1st day of June 1969.
Explanation I to that section defines the word "cultivate" to
include the planting and rearing of topes, gardens, orchards an\l
plantation crops.
According to Explanation IT, where any lan<l
is cultivated with plantation crops, any land occupied by any
building for the purpose of or ancillary to the cultivation of such
crops or the preparation of the same for the market and any waste
land lying interspersed among or contignous to the planted area
iUflll'ME COURT REPORTS
[l!l73] 1 S.C.R.
upto a maximum of twj:nty-five per centum of the planted area
shall be con&trued to be lam! cultivated by the ianmi.
Section 9
deals with lands in re&p~ct of which a tenant is entitled to ryotwari
patta.
According to the section, every tenant shall, with effect
on an\l frolll the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwllri patta in
respect of tbe lands in his occupation.
The right of the tenant to
the ryotwari patta is subject to tlie conditions regarding cultivation
mentioned in the provisos to that section.
Section 10 provides
that where no person is entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of a
land in a janmam estate under section 8 or section 9 and the land
vests in the Government, a· person who had bllen personally cultivating such fand for a continuous period of three agricultural years
immediately before the 1st day of June 1969, shall be entitled to
a ryotwari patta in respect of that land.
This right too is subject
to conditions mentione.d in that section.
According to section 11,
no ryotwari patta shall be granted with respect to the following
categories situated within the limits of a janmam estate :
(a) forests;
(b) beds and bunds of tan!\:s and of supply, drainage,
surplus or irrigation, channels;
( c) threshing floor, cattle stands, village sites, carttracks, roads, te'11ple sites and such other lands situated
in any janmam estate as are set apart for the ,common
use of the vill<1gers;
( d) rivers, streams and other porambokes.
Section 12 empowers the Settlement Officer to inquire into the
claims of any person for a ryotwari patta under the Act in respect
of any land in a janmam estate and decide in respect of which
land the claim should be allowed.
A right of appeal against the
decision of the Settlement Officer to thll Tribunal appointed under
the A,ct is given by sμb-section ( 3) of section 12.
The Tribunal,
<\CCOrding (o section 7·, shall consist of one persoil' only who shall
be <\ Judicial Officer not bel\>w the rank of Subordinate Judge.
Section 13 fastens li1tbility to pay land revenue to Government on
the person who becomes entitled to a ryotwari patta under the Act.
As regards a l;>uild,i.ng, section 14 provides that with effect on and
ft\)m the appointed d'.ly, the same shall vest in the person who
owned it inimediately before that day, subject to tile conditions
mentioned in that s.ectio11. Section 15 deals with rights of persons
a,dmittfd into pos,s.esswn of any land in a j3.WJ1.am estate by any
janmi for a non-agricultuJ"a,l purpose, while sectron 16 makes provisi<>n for clirectiollS to be issued by the Government in respect of
a person <1dinitt<ld by a janmi into. IJ06Session of any land of the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
BALMADIES PLANTATIONS LTD. V. TAMIL NADU
265
(Khanna, J.)
description specified in s~ction 11.
Section 17 .relates to the
rights of lessees of plantat10ns and reads as under ·
"S. 17. Rights of lessees of p/antations.-(1) (a~
Where at any time be.fore the appointed day the 1anm1
has created by way of lease, rights in any lands for purposes of cultivation of plantatio~ c:ops, the . qovemment may, if in their opinion, it 1s m the pubhc interest
to do so, by not\ce given to the person concerned terminate the right with effect fr?m such . date as may be
specified in the notice, not bemg earlier than three
months from the date thereof.
( b) The· person whose right has been so terminated
shall be entitled to compensation from the Government
which shall be determined by the Board of Revenue in
such manner as may be prescribed, having regard to the
value of the right and the period for which the right was
created.
( c) Where any such right is not determined under
this sub-section, the transaction whereby such right was
created shall be deemed to be valid and all rights and
obligations arising thereunder, on or after the appointed
day, shall be enforceable by or against the Government :
Provided that the transaction was not void or illegal
under any law in force at the time.
(2) The Goverwnent may, if in their opinion, it is
in the public interest to do so, impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any right continued, under
this section.
Explanation.-Any rights granted in perpetuity shall
cease and determine and be dealt with under section
(3) (e) and not under this section."
Section 18 deals with the rights of certain other lessees.
Chapter IV of the Act, which contains sections 19 3nd 20,
deals with survey and settlement of janmah1 estates.
Chapter V,'
which contains sections 21 to 30, makes provision for determination and payment of compensation.
As regards the Nilambur
Kovilagam, one of the appellants before us, the explanation to
section 22 reads as under :
"Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the
H
janmam estate owned by the Nilambur Kovilagam which
is partly divided and partly held in common by the several tavazhis shall be construed as
a single janmam
estate."
18-120~SupCf/72
266
· SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R.
Amount of compensation is the subject of section 28, while section
29 relates to the determination of basic annual sum and compensation.
The subject deal with by chapter VI, containing sections
31 to 46, is "Deposit and Apportionment of Compensation".
Sections 4 7 to 50 contained in chapter VII make provision for
recovery of contribution from pattadars.
Chapter VIII contains
the miscellaneous provisions.
Section 58 makes final the orders
passed by the various authorities under the Act, while section 60
confers powers on the Government to make rules for carrying
out the purposes of the Act.
The rules are required to be published in the gazette and to be placed on the table of both Houses
of Legislature, so that the Houses may, if they so deem proper,
make modificatio:i in any such rule.
We may at this stage advert to janmam estate.
According to
Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency by S. Sundararaja Iyengar, Second Edition ( p. 49), the exclusive right to, and hereditary
possession of the sail in Malabar is denoted by the term jenmam
which means birthright and the holder thereof is known as jenmi,
jenmakaran or ~111talalan. Until the conquest of Malabar by the
M ahomer.lan princes of Mysore, the jenmis appear to have held
their lands free from any liability to make any payment, either in
money or in produce, to government and therefore until that
period, such an absolute property was vested in ther: as was not
found in any oth~r part of the Presidency.
Sir Charles Turner
after noticing the various forms of transactions prevalent in Malabar stetted that they pointed to an ownership of the soil as complete
as was enjoyed by a freeholder in England.
Subb~. f~ao J. (as he
then was), speaking for the Court, in the case of Kavalappara
Koltarathil Kochuni and Others v. The State of Madras and
Others(') observed :
"A janmam right is the freehold interest in a property situated in Kerala.
Moor in his "Malabar Law
and Custom" describes it as a hereditary proprietorship.
A janmam interest may, therefore, be described as "proprietary interest of a landlord in lands",. and such a
janmam right is described as "estate" in the Constitution."
· It was held that the proprietor called janmi could create many
subordinate interests or tenures like lease or mortgage in a janmam
estate.
It is not, however, necessary to dilate upon the matter as
janmam estate has been defined in clause (6) of section 2 of the
Act to mean any parcel or parcels of land included in the holding
of a janmi.
Janmi, according to clause (7) of the said section,
means a person entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land and
includes a trustee in respect thereof.
(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
I
E
F
G
-
H
IALMADIES PLANTATIONS LTD. v. TAMIL NADU
267
(Khanna, J.)
Ryotwari or kulwar system was first introduced intO the British
possessions by Col. Read in 1792.
When the Baramahal and
Saleem were ceded to the British by Tippu, Lord Cornwallis specially deputed Col. Read for their settlement.
The prevailing
system of land revenue settlement at the time was the permanent
settlement. Col. Read, however, deemed it prudent to enter into
temporary settlements with the actual cultivators and this gave
rise to a new system since designated ryotwari or kulwar system.
The system introduced by Col. Read embraced the survey of
every holding in the district and a field assessment based on the
productive powers of the soil. The ryot was not regarded as the
proprietor of the soil but only as a cultivating tenant from whom
was to be exacted by . government all that the he could afford.
Certain objectionable features of the ryotwari system were then
noticed, and an effort was made to eliminate those objectionable
features. The ryotwari system in force at present means the division of all arable land, whether cultivated or waste, into blqcks,
the assessment of each block at a fixed rate for a term of years
and tfo exaction of revenue from each occupant according to
the area of land thus assessed. That area may remain either constant or may be varied from year to year at the occupant's pleasure
by the relinquishment of old blocks or the occupation of new
ones.
This distinguishing feature of this system is that the state
is brought into direct contact with the occupant of land and collects its revenue through its own servants without the intervention
of an intermediate agent such as the Zemindar.
All the' inco1'Je
derived from extended cultivation goes to the state.
Ryotwari
lands are known as taraf lands in the Tanjore District, and as
ayan, sirkar, koru, or government lands in· the other parts of the
Presidency (see pages 152 and 153 of Land Tenure in the Madras
Presidency, Second Edition, by Sundararaja Iyengar).
According to Land System of British India by Baden-Powell,
the holders of ryotwari pattas used to hold lands on lease from
Government. The basic idea of ryotwari settlement is that every
bit of land is assessed to a certain revenue and assigned a survey
number for a period of years. which is usually thirty, and each
occupant of such land holds it subject to his paying the Jandrevenue fixed on that land.
But it is open to the occupant to
relinquish his land or to take new land which has been relinquished
by some other occupant or become otherwise available on payment of assessment. The above observations were referred to bv
this Court in the case of Karimbil Kunhikoman v. State of
Kerala( 1) and it was said:
"The ryot is generally called ii tenant of Government
but he is not a tenant from year to year and cannot be
___ ousted as long as he pays the land-revenue assessed. He
(1) [1962] 1 Supp S.c.R.847.
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
has also the right to sell or mortgage or gift the land or
lease it and the transfree becomes liable in his place
for the revenue.
Further, the lessee of a ryotwari
pattadar has no rights except those conferred under the
lease and is generally a sub-te.nant at-will liable to ejectment at the end of each year.
In the Manual of
Administration as quoted by Baden-Powell, in Vol. III
of Land Systems of J:jritish India at p. 129, the ryotwari
tenure is summarised as that "of a tenant of the State
enjoying a tenant-right which can be inherited, sold, or
burdened for debt in precisely the same manner as a proprietary right subject always to the payment of the revenue due to the State".
Though therefore the ryotwari
;;attadar is virtually like a proprietor and has many of
the' advantages of such a proprietor, he could still relinquish or abandon his land in favour of the government.
It is because of this position that the ryotwari pattadar
was never considered a proprietor of the land under his
patta, though he hdd many of the advantages of a proprietor ."
This Court held in the above case that the land held by ryotwari
pattadars in the area which came to the State of Kerala by virtue
of the States Reorganization Act from the State of Madras were
not 'estates' within the meaning of article 31A(2). of the Constitution.
Subsequent to that decision, clause (2) of article 31A was
amended by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment)· Act,
1964. As a result of that amendment, 'estate' would also include
any land held under ryotwari settlement.
Let us now go into the question as to whether the janmam
rights in the lands in question have been converted into ryotwari
estate.
We are concerned in the present case with the settlement
of 1886 and resettlement of 1926. In connection with the settlement of 1886, G.O. 741 Revenue dated August 27, 1886 was
issued and its main purpose was to settle the lands which had been
escheated to the Government and to collect revenue for the State.
An attempt was then made to have direct dealing with the cultivators without notice to the janmi.
This act of the State was held
to be against law by a Division Bench of the ·Madras High Court
in the case of Secretary of Stqte v. Ashtamurthi('). In that case
the Collector of Malabar let defendant No. 2 into possession of
certain waste land in 1869 under a cowle, and in 1872 granted
to him a patta for it. The cowledar then brought the land under
cultivation b11t subsequently left it uncultivated and failed to pay
the assessed revenue.
The land was consequently attached in
1885 for arrears of revenue under th~ Revenue Recovery Act and
sold to defendant No. 3.
The plaintiff. who was the janmi of the
1) I.L.R.13 Madras 89.
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
;
A
B
c
-
D
E
F
G
H
BALMADIES PLANTATIONS LTD. V. TAMIL NADU
269
(Khanna, J.)
land, had no notice of, the grant of either the cowle or the patta.
He asserted his right to janmabhogam in a petition presented to the
Collector at the time of the sale, but the sale proceeded without
reference to his claim.
Suit was thereafter brought by the plaintiff to set aside the sale. It was held that the interest of the janmi
did not pass by the sale.
Parker, J. in the above context observ·
ed:
"The evidence shows that the janmis or the proprietors of the soil in Malabar have long been in the habit
of leasing out the greater portion of their estates to
kanomdars wh(} are thus in the immediate occupancy of
the greater part of the soil.
This was the state of things
at the time of Ryder's conquest (exhibit XIV), and the
British Government is stated to have continued the practice of the Mysore Government in settling the assessment
with these kanomdars.
At the annexation of Malabar
in 1799 the Government disclaimed any desire to act as
the proprietor of the soil, and directed that rent should be
collected from the immediate cultivators, Trimbak Ranu
v. Nana Bhavani(') and Secretary of State v.
Vira
Rayan ('), thus limiting its claim to revenue.
Further,
in their despatch of 17th December 1813 relating to the
settlement of Malabar the Directors observed that in
Malabar they bad no property in the land to confer, with
the exception of some forfeited estates.
This may be
regarded as an 1bsolute disclaimer by the Government
of the day of any proprietary'right in the janmis' estate,
and is hardly consistent with the right of letting in a
tenant which is certainly an exercise of proprietary
right."
On account of the above decision, the Madras Government
reconsidered the matter and in 1896 the Malabar Land Registration Act (Act 3 of 1896) was enacted.
The object of that Act
wou!J be clear from its preamble which reads :
"WHEREAS Regulation XXVI of 1802 prov10es
that landed property paying revenue to Government shall
be registered by the Collector; and whereas such landed
property in certain areas in the Nilgiri district · has in
many cases not been registered in the names of the proprietors thereof; and whereas it is desirable for the security. of the public revenue to provide a summary means
whereby the .Collector may ascertain such proprietors;
It is hereby enacted as follows."
According to section 13 of the above Act every person registered
as proprietor of an estate shall be deemed to be the landholder in
(1) 12 Born. H.C.R. 144:
(2) I.L.R. 9 Mad.175.'
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973) l S.C.R.
respect of such estate within the meaning and for the purposes of
the Madras Revenue Recovery Act II of 1864.
The janmam
rights in the lands in dispute thus remained intact. . The
st~d
taken on behalf of the petitioner-appellant, as ment10ned earher,
is that the janmam rights in the lands in dispute were converted
into ryotwari estate as a result of resettlement of 1926.
Government order No. 1902 Revenue dated November l,
19~6 was
issued in this connection.
Para 3 of that order deals with the
janmam estates and reads as under :
"3. JANMABHOGAM :-Paragraph 11 of
the
Board's Proceedings-Lands have hitherto been described as-
(a) Government Janmam, i.e. lands which are held
directly from the Government and on which taram
assessment and janmabhogam are paid to the Government and
(b) private janmam, i.e. lands
wlich are
held
directly from the Government and on which taram
assessment but not janmabhogam is paid to the Government.
These two classes of land will hereafter be referred
to as 'New Holdings' and 'Old Holdings'.
The Special Settlement Officer proposed-
( 1 ) to raise the existing rate of janmabhogam of
8 annas an acre on all so-called Government janmam
land in estates to Re. 1 an acre for highly developed
estate crops;
(2) to retain the existing rate on lands cultivated
with non-estate crops; and
( 3) to reduce it to 4 annas an acre on undeveloped
lands.
The Board supported the proposals (I ) and ( 3) but
recommended an increase to Re. 1 in the case of proposal ( 2). The Government have decided to apply
the I Si per cent limit imposed in G.O. No. 924, Revenue, dated 18th June, 1924, to janmabhogam.
After
careful consideration the Government have decided to
accept the Board's proposal to amalgamate the two items
of land revenue, i.e., taram assessment and so called
'lanmabhogam' which are being collected on all socalled Government janmam lands, i.e., on new holdings,
and in future to collect assessment on these lands at a
B
c
E
p
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BALMADIES PLANTATIONS LTD. V. TAMIL NADU
271
(Khanna, !.)
consolidated rate based UPon the total of the rates at
which these two items of the land revenue are now being
levied.
In all the figures quoted in the Appendix to this
order concerning these lands the revised rate given is
this consolidated rate."
It would appear from the above that the effect of the resettlement
of 1926 was to retain the janmam estates and not to abolish the
same or to convert them into ryotwari estates.
There was merely
a change of nomenclature.
Government janmam lands were
called the new holdings, while private janmam lands were called
the old holdings;
In respect of janmabhogam ( Janmi's share)
relating to Government janmam lands, the order further directed
that the amount to be paid to the Government should include both
the taram assessment and janmabhogam. It is difficult, in our
opinion, to infer from the above that janmam rights in the lands ·
in question were extinguished and converted into ryotwari estates.
The use of the word 'janmabhogam' on the contrary indicates that
the rights of janmis were kept intact.
It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner-appellants that
the grant of a right of relinquishment to janmis had the effect of
obliterating the distinction between janmam estate and ryotwari
estate.
The janmam rights, according to the submission, were
thus converted into ryotwari estate.
In this connection we find
that the Government order No. 1902 dated November 1, 1926
shows that question was raised as to whether a janmi of private
janmam land could claim exemption from assessment by leaving
cultivable lands waste.
The Board of Revenue recommended
that exemption should not be granted unless the janmi pattadar
relinquished his whole right, title and interest.
The Government,
however, considered that having regard to the practice of exempting unoccupied janmam lands from assessment the janmi shculd
not be required to pay assessment on lands the cultivation of which
was to cease. In 1896 a system was introduced, according to
which a janmi could give notice of relinquishment without giving
up his janmam rights over the-land and claim remission of assessment on the relinquished land if it was not taken up for cultivation in the following year.
The Board of Revenue in proceedings
dated October 16, 1897 pointed out that this was in effect a reversion to the old system of charging all cultivation with all its attendant evils of corruption, loss of revenue and unnecessary labour in
inspection. The matter was thereafter further considered and the
Board in its proceedings dated June 13, 1916 expressed the opinion
that the existing rule relating to relinquishment of private lands
l"Jas anomalous and proposed that no relinquishment of such lands
should be permitted unless the janmi surrendered also his janmam
right and that until he relinquished such right, he should be responsible to the Government for the payment of the assessment due
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R.
on such lands.
This proposal was accepted by the Government
in 1917 and reiterate<\ in l 919. lt would thus appear that the
relinquishment permissible in the case of janmi was _of a. somewhat
peculiar nature inasmuch as there could be no re!m9mshme.nt of
janmam lands unless the janmi surre.ndered al~o. his ia.nam nghts.
The above right of relinquishment, m our opm10n, did. not. have
the effect of converting the janmam rights in the lands m dispute
into ryotwari estate.
It is not disputed that apart from the lands in question, there
are no other janmam estates in the State of Tamil Nadu (Madras).
A.
B
c
If the janmam estates in question had been converted. into ryotwari
estates as a result of the resettlement of 1926, there would have
arisen no necessity to mention the janmam right in the State of
Madras in clause (2) (a) (i) of article 31A of the Constitution.
The fact that in addition to the janmam right in the State of
Kerala, the janmam right in the State of Madras was also mentioned in clause (2) (a) (i) of article 31A as a result of amendment, shows that the janmam rights in the lands in question were
assumed by the legislature to be in existence.
To hold that the D
janmam rights in the lands in question ceased to exist after the
resettlement of 1926 wo1.1ld have the effect of rendering the words,
wherein there is a reference to janmam right in the State of Madras
ifi clause (2)(a)(i) of article 31A, to be meaningless and without any purpose.
E
Reference has been made on behalf of the petitioner-appellants
to the Full Bench case of Sukapuram Sabhayogam v. State of
Kem/a(') wherein it was held that a person would cease to be
pro;:irietor of a soil if he gets a right or is under an obligation to
relinquish or abandon the land.
The above case related to the
plains of Malabar, while we are concerned with the hilly tracts of
Gudalur taluk.
In the cited case pattas and. Adanoal recristers
were produced in the court and the State accepted th~ authe~ticitv E
of those documents.
In the cases before us, no patta was produced by the petitioner-appellants either in the High Court or in
this Court.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the
facts of the Full Bench case are distinguishable. In any case, we
are unable to subscribe to the proposition that the rir,ht of relinqui5hment of janmam rights of a janmi would by itself convert
G
janmam rights into ryotwari estate.
Argument has also been advanced on behalf of the petitionerappellants that so far a> the forest areas in the janmam lands in
question are concerned, they do not constitute estate unless they
are held or let for purpose~ of agriculture or for purposes ancillary .thereto, as contemplated by clause (2)(a) (iii) of article 31A H
of tbe Constitution. This fOntention, in our opinion, is devoid of
(I) A l.ll. 1%3 Kera!' JOI.
-
B
c
_D
E
F
G
H
BAtMADIES PLANTATIONS LTI:" V. TAMIL NADU
273
(Khanna, !.