# COCHIN DEV ASWOM BOARD, TRICHUR v. YAMANA SHETTY AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 724
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-03-02
- **Bench:** P. B. Gaj~Ndragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah Ands. M. Sikri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/cochin-dev-aswom-board-trichur-v-yamana-shetty-and-ors-3736
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

The Trava11core-Cochin Kanam Tenancy Act (24 o/ 1955)-I/ applies
to Devaswo1ns.
Constitution o/ India. 1950, Art. 14-Act applicable only to CocliirJ
area of the Kera/a State-If Act. ultra vire>.
In 1910. the Ruler of Cochin issued a Proclamation publishing Ruic.
·to secure the better administration of Devaswoms.
Clause 9 of the Proclamation authorised the Diwan of the State to make Rules 10 carry out
the main object and scheme of the Proclamation.
In exerci9C of
the
authority conferred upon him. tho Diwan publ.shed rules on March 21.
1910
regulating
the procedure in
the matter of collection Paartam,
Mlchovaram, rcoewal fee and other dues payable to Devaswoms.
These
Rules applied to all tenants-<>nlinary as well as Ka11am. In 1955, the
Legislature of the Part B State of Travancore C<>chin enacted the TravanCOl'O-Cocbin Kanam Tenancy Act conferring full proprietary right.I oo
Kanam
tenanl\
in
the
Cochin
area
of the State,
subject
only
to
the
payment
of
Janimikaram
..,
a
result
of
which,
the
.KanamAenant wao; declared proprietor
of the land and the right of the
J.emni was only to receive rhe Janniikaram.
After the enactment of the
Act, the Cochin Dcvaswom Board c1aimed to recover n1icliavaram from
the Kanam tenants at the r.it~ settled under the Rule; made under
the
Proclamation of 1910.
The Kanam·tenant..; petitioned the
Hi~h C.ourt
for an appropriate writ qu..,hing the notices of demand issued by the
Board. and the High Court allowed the petition. and directed the Board
not to proceed to enforce the notices.
In appeal to this Court. it waa
contended that; (i) the Act applied only to land held under a contract
of tenancv and not to Devaswom lands in respect of which the mi.schavaram
and rencv•al fee \\·ere governed by Rules framed under the Proclamation
(ii) the Act v.'a~ discriminatory and void.
HELD : (i) The Tnl\·ancoro-Cochin Kanom l'enancy Act goverm
lands held from Deva.nvonzs in the Cochin region of the State Kerala.
The Scheme of the Rules published by the Diwan under the Proclamation was lh3t an offer of Pattah on the terms c:,.pecifie<l in a rough draft
was to he made to the tenant and after the terms were settled a
final
Pattah wao; to h: given :ind the Kanam·tenanl had to execute a K\'cliit
(undertaking) in favour of the State.
Thou~h the quantum of ,\firh1Jva.
,_ and the renewal fee was determined by the Rules under the proclamation the terms of the Pattah and Kychir evidenced the contract which
determined the rights of rhe Kanam tenant and the Devasa·o1n.
There·
fore. the definitions of 'holding', 'miclzavara1n'. 'Kana.?1',
'Renewal
fee'
and 'lanmikaratn' in s. 2 of the Act applied !o all lando; held hv K"'nam·
tenants whether they \vere Dtva.nvom or non.Devasom.
Further, though
the Rulec; under the Procl:imation are not c~nre·~lv repe:1led hv tli~ Act.
the Act mu't be deemed ro have partially super.<eded the Proclamar'on and
the Rule. in so far as the latter related to the rights and obli~a•ions of
the Kanam.tenant! in the three religions, the Act is not discriminatory.
Board. [732 D-D; 733 A-BJ
A
I
II
c
D
G
•
II
•
'
""--·
•
'
DEVASWOM BOARD v. YAMANA SHETTY (Shah, /.)
725
A
(ii) The Act does not infringe tho guarantee of equal protection of
the laws in Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Though the Act only applies to the Cochin area of the State of Kerala
which consists of the three regions of Travancore, Cochin and Malabar,
since there is a difference between the relations governing the Jenmies and
the Kanam-tenants in the three religions,
the Act is not discriminatory.
[734 C-E)
B

## Text

COCHIN DEV ASWOM BOARD, TRICHUR
v.
YAMANA SHETTY AND ORS.
March 2, 1966
[P. B. GAJ~NDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M.
HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.]
The Trava11core-Cochin Kanam Tenancy Act (24 o/ 1955)-I/ applies
to Devaswo1ns.
Constitution o/ India. 1950, Art. 14-Act applicable only to CocliirJ
area of the Kera/a State-If Act. ultra vire>.
In 1910. the Ruler of Cochin issued a Proclamation publishing Ruic.
·to secure the better administration of Devaswoms.
Clause 9 of the Proclamation authorised the Diwan of the State to make Rules 10 carry out
the main object and scheme of the Proclamation.
In exerci9C of
the
authority conferred upon him. tho Diwan publ.shed rules on March 21.
1910
regulating
the procedure in
the matter of collection Paartam,
Mlchovaram, rcoewal fee and other dues payable to Devaswoms.
These
Rules applied to all tenants-<>nlinary as well as Ka11am. In 1955, the
Legislature of the Part B State of Travancore C<>chin enacted the TravanCOl'O-Cocbin Kanam Tenancy Act conferring full proprietary right.I oo
Kanam
tenanl\
in
the
Cochin
area
of the State,
subject
only
to
the
payment
of
Janimikaram
..,
a
result
of
which,
the
.KanamAenant wao; declared proprietor
of the land and the right of the
J.emni was only to receive rhe Janniikaram.
After the enactment of the
Act, the Cochin Dcvaswom Board c1aimed to recover n1icliavaram from
the Kanam tenants at the r.it~ settled under the Rule; made under
the
Proclamation of 1910.
The Kanam·tenant..; petitioned the
Hi~h C.ourt
for an appropriate writ qu..,hing the notices of demand issued by the
Board. and the High Court allowed the petition. and directed the Board
not to proceed to enforce the notices.
In appeal to this Court. it waa
contended that; (i) the Act applied only to land held under a contract
of tenancv and not to Devaswom lands in respect of which the mi.schavaram
and rencv•al fee \\·ere governed by Rules framed under the Proclamation
(ii) the Act v.'a~ discriminatory and void.
HELD : (i) The Tnl\·ancoro-Cochin Kanom l'enancy Act goverm
lands held from Deva.nvonzs in the Cochin region of the State Kerala.
The Scheme of the Rules published by the Diwan under the Proclamation was lh3t an offer of Pattah on the terms c:,.pecifie<l in a rough draft
was to he made to the tenant and after the terms were settled a
final
Pattah wao; to h: given :ind the Kanam·tenanl had to execute a K\'cliit
(undertaking) in favour of the State.
Thou~h the quantum of ,\firh1Jva.
,_ and the renewal fee was determined by the Rules under the proclamation the terms of the Pattah and Kychir evidenced the contract which
determined the rights of rhe Kanam tenant and the Devasa·o1n.
There·
fore. the definitions of 'holding', 'miclzavara1n'. 'Kana.?1',
'Renewal
fee'
and 'lanmikaratn' in s. 2 of the Act applied !o all lando; held hv K"'nam·
tenants whether they \vere Dtva.nvom or non.Devasom.
Further, though
the Rulec; under the Procl:imation are not c~nre·~lv repe:1led hv tli~ Act.
the Act mu't be deemed ro have partially super.<eded the Proclamar'on and
the Rule. in so far as the latter related to the rights and obli~a•ions of
the Kanam.tenant! in the three religions, the Act is not discriminatory.
Board. [732 D-D; 733 A-BJ
A
I
II
c
D
G
•
II
•
'
""--·
•
'
DEVASWOM BOARD v. YAMANA SHETTY (Shah, /.)
725
A
(ii) The Act does not infringe tho guarantee of equal protection of
the laws in Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Though the Act only applies to the Cochin area of the State of Kerala
which consists of the three regions of Travancore, Cochin and Malabar,
since there is a difference between the relations governing the Jenmies and
the Kanam-tenants in the three religions,
the Act is not discriminatory.
[734 C-E)
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 11-18 of
c
D
E.
F
G
H
1964.
Appeals from the judgmeut aud orders dated November 7,
IS, 1960 of the Kerala High Court in Original Petitions Nos. 269,
284, 129, 250, 285 and 265 of 1957, and 102 and 269 of 1958 respectively.
M. K. Nambyar, P. K. Krishnan Kutty Menon, B. Dutta,
J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
Niren De, Additional Solicitor-General, A. G.
Pudissery and
M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondent the State of Kerala (In C. As.
Nos. 17 and 18 of 1964).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. Two questions fall to be determined in these appeals:
(!) Whether the Travancore-Cochin Kanam Tenancy
Act 24 of 1955 governs lands held from Devaswoms
(religious institutions) in the Cochin region of the State
of Kerala; and
(2) Whether the Act infringes the guarantee of equal
protection of the laws and is on that account void?
Kanam tenure has a feudal origin. Broadly stated it is a
customary transfer which partakes of the character of a mortgage and of a lease: it cannot be redeemed before a fixed number
of years-normally twelve-and the (Kanamdar) mortgagee-lessee is
entitled on redemption to compensation for improvements. The
annual payments to the (Jenmi) mortgagor-lessor are regulated
by what remains of the fixed share of the produce after deducting
interest. If the land is not redeemed on the expiry of 12 years,
a renewal fee becomes payable to the jenmi. The Cochin State
Manual contains the following description of the kanam tenure
in the Cochin region:
"The Verumpattam (simple lease) becomes a kanam
lease when the janmi (landholder) acknowledges liability
to pay a lump sum to the tenant on the redemption of
his lease. In the old days his liability was created in
most cases as a reward to the tenant for military or other
services rendered by him, but in more recent times, kanam
encumbrances were generally created by the janmi borrowing money from his tenant to meet any extraordinary
726
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
(1966] 3 S.C.R.
expenditure by the conversion of the compensation payable to Kuzhikanam (lessee who had a right to make
improvements) holders into a kanam debt, or by the treatment of the amount deposited by the tenant for the punctual payment of rent and husband-like cultivation as a
charge on the land. In kanam leases the net produce,
after deducting the cost of seed and cultivation, is shared
equally between the landlord and the tenant, and from
the share of the former the tenant is entitled to deduct
interest on the kanam amount at five per cent. The
overplus, that is payable to the janmi after making these
deductions, is known as michavaram. The kanamdar is
entitled to the undisturbed enjoyment of the land for
twelve years, but formerly it was for the life time of the
demisor. At the end of this period, the lease may be
terminated by the janmi paying the kanam amount and
the value of the improvements effected by the tenant, or
it may be renewed on the latter paying a premium or
renewal fee to the landlord."
After the expulsion in 1762 of the Zamorin of Calicut who had
invaded Cochin, the Ruler of Cochin divested the chieftains
who had supported the invader of their administrative powers and
confiscated their properties and the Devaswoms under their management.
Managers of the major Devaswoms who had welcomed
the invader were also deprived of their powers, and administration
of a large majority of Devaswoms was assumed by the State. Some
minor Devaswoms were later taken over by the State, because of
incompetent or dishonest management, and a scheme was devised
by the State for maintenance of accounts of the Devaswom properties and for administration of the affairs of the Devaswoms
according to the existing usage. The Devaswoms, revenues and expenditure whereof were thus completely merged in the general revenues, were called 'Incorporated' Devaswoms. Some time after the
incorporation of these Devaswoms, management of two wellknown endowed temples was surrendered to the Ruler, but administration of these Devaswoms was not amalgamated with the "Incorporated" Devaswoms and their expenditure continued to be
met from the receipts from the temples.
Later the State assumed
management of some more Devaswoms and treated them in the
same manner as the two major temples. These institutions which
were later acquired were treated as independent of each other as
well as of the "Incorporated" Devaswoms and were called "Unincorporated" Devaswoms.
On February 11, 1910, the Ruler of Cochin issued a Proclamation publishing rules to secure better administration of the
Incorporated and Unincorporated Devaswoms. The rules provided
that the endowments attached to and the income derived from
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
H
A
'
B
c
I
D
r
•
E
F
G
H
DEVASWOM BOARD v. YAMANA SHETTY (Shah, /.).
727
the Devaswoms, whether "Incorporated" or Unincorporated", shall'
be constituted into a Common Trust for all administrative purposes,
that accounts shall be maintained as directed and that the surplus
after defraying the expenses shall be appropriated in the manner
prescribed. By cl. 9 the Diwan of the State was given authority
to frame rules for carrying out the main object and the scheme
of the Proclamation, and the rules so framed were to have the same
force and validity as the Proclamation, and were to regulate the
renewals, prescribe the mode of collection of rents as well as rates
of rents payable by tenants, and to provide for such other matters
as may be necessary for securing efficiency and uniformity in the
administration of the landed properties belonging to all Devaswoms.
The Diwan of Cochin promulgated on March 21, 1910, rules regulating procedure in the matter of collecting Paattam, Michavaram,
renewal fee and other dues payable to Devaswoms and other religious institutions. The rules provided for maintenance of public
registers in respect of landed properties, payment of rent due by
the tenants to the Devaswom Officer and prescribed methods for
recovery of arrears by sequestration of property either temporarily
or permanently. These rules applied to all tenants-ordinary and
kanam.
On November 8, 1910, some more rules were published by the
Diwan. These rules were designed to regulate the principles and
procedure to be observed in fixing the rates of rents, renewal of
holdings and for securing efficiency and uniformity in the administration of landed properties of all the Devaswoms. By cl. 5 the
principles to be followed in the classification of lands and for fixing
rents were prescribed. It was directed by cl. 8 that the lands shall
be carefully examined and classified with reference to soil, situation,
productiveness, drainage and irrigation facilities and other relevant
considerations. By cl. 13 all Devaswom lands held under kanam,
and other tenures of a cognate nature were to be charged full rent
fixed in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Rules,
but from the full rent so charged, deductions were to be made on
account of interest on kanam etc.
By cl. 16 it was provided that
holdings of land under kanam and other tenures were subject to
renewal periodically once in fifteen years, at each of which occasion
the tenant was liable to pay renewal fee calculated at the customary
rates prevailing in each Devaswom.
On July 12, 1911, supplementary rules were published to
regulate the administration of lands belonging to Devaswoms and
for maintenance of accounts connected therewith. By cl. 3 rights
and obligations under a Pattah to be issued by the Devaswom were
prescribed and these obligations under the Pattah were to be embodied in a kychit (undertaking) which each Devaswom tenant receiv--
ing a Pattah had to execute.
728 •
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
[1966] 3 S.Cl.R.
On October 24, 1914, the Maharaja of Cochin Promulgated
the Cochin Tenancy Act II of 1090 M. E. (1914 A.D.).
The expression "Kanam tenant" was defined by s. 2 (c) as meaning a
tenant who holds lands on payment of consideration in money
or in kind or partly in money and partly in kind to the landlord
for his holding, and on a demise made or renewed by a landlord
on a tenure that is subject to renewal after a fixed period on payment of a renewal fee. "Michavaram" was defined in s. 2 (g) as
"whatever is agreed to be paid to a landlord by a kanam tenant
after deducting from the paal/om the interest due on the kan:cm."
Provision was made in Ch. III for renewals of kanam holdings and
ejectment of kanam tenants and for other incidental matters.
On May 29, 1949 the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin States
entered into a covenant for the formation of the United State of
Travancore-Cochin. On January 26, 1950 the State of TravancoreCochin became a Part 'B' State within the Union of India. By
s. 62 of Act 15 of 1950 effect was given to Art. 8-D of the covenant
and it was provided that the administration of "Incorporated" and
"Unincorporated" Devaswoms and Hindu religious institutiolli
which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949, and all their propertie5
and funds and the estates and all institutions under the management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest in the
Cochin Devaswom Board.
By s. 113 (2) the provisions of the
Devaswom Proclamation dated February II, 1910 and the rule1>
framed thereunder in respect of the procedure to be adopted and
the mode of recovery of pattom, micliavaram, renewal fees and other
dues were, it was declared, to apply mlllatis mutandis to the procedure and mode of recovery of paa11om, michavaram renewal fee.;
and other dues relating to "Incorporated" and "Unincorporated"
Devaswoms.
The Legislature of the State of Travancore-Cochin enacted
Act 24 of 1955 called the Travancore-Cochin Kanam Tenancy
Act 24 of 1955 with the object of conferring full proprietary rights
on kanam tenants in the Cochin area subject only to the payment
A
B
c
D
E
JI
of janmikaram and to provide for the settlement, collection and
payment of jamnikaram and for matters incidental thereto.
By
G
s. 3 ( 1) of the Act it was provided :
"From and after the commencement of this Act,
the Jenmi shall not have any right, claim or interest in an)
land in a holding except the right to receive the jenmikaram
thereon and the kanam-tenant shall be deemed to be
the owner of the land subject only to the payment of
H
the jenmikaram.
Explanation (I).
A
B
•
c
D
E
F
G
H
DEVASWOM BOARD V. YAMANA SHETTY (Shah, J.)
729·
Explanation (2).
Explanation (3).
The jenmi's right as well as the kanam tenant's right were declared
heritable and transferable by sale, gift or otherwise. By s. 5,
jenmikaram was made a first charge on land. Under the customary kanam-tenure the jenmi was either a lessor or a mortgagor
having rights of ownership in the land, but by Act 24 of 1955 the
relationship was fundamentally altered; subject to payment of
jenmikaram the kanam-tenant was declared a proprietor of the
land and the right of the jenmi was only to receive the jenmikaram.
After the enactment of Act 24 of 1955 the Cochin ·Devaswom
Board (which was constituted under s. 62 of the Travancore-Cochin
Hindu Religious Institutions Act 15 of 1950) claimed to recover
Michavaram at the rates settled under the rules made in exercise
of the power conferred by cl. 9 of the Proclamation of 1910. The
kanam-tenants thereupon petitioned the High Court of Kerala for
a writ of certiorari, prohibition or other writ quashing the notices
of demand issued by the Board and all proceedings taken by the
Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. It was claimed by the kanamtenants that on expressing their readiness to pay jenmikaram settled under the rules framed under Act 24 of 1955, they were entitled
to hold the lands in their occupation as proprietors and the Board
could not demand any amount in excess of the jenmikaram. The
Board presented in their turn two petitions praying for the issue of
writs of certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing notices issued
by the Jenmikaram Settlement Officers under the provisions of
the Kanam Tenancy Act 24 of 1955 in respect of the lands owned
by "Unincorporated" Devaswoms and for a writ of prohibilio11
against those Officers from enforcing the provisions of Act 24 of
1955 and the rules framed thereunder. The Board claimed that
the provisions of Act 24 of 1955 did not apply to land held by its
ka1tam tenants, and that in any event the proceedings taken by the
Jenmikaram Settlement Officer for settlement of the jenmikaram
payable by its kanam-tenants and the rules framed thereunder
"were illegal and ultra vires of their powers."
The High Court of Kerala held that by the enactment of Act
24 of 1955, the Board's fundamental rights under Art. 31(2) or
under Art. 14 of the Constitution were not infringed, and that the
Board could not demand payment of Michavaram as regulated
by the Proclamation of 1910, because the provisions settling the
Michavaram under the Proclamation were superseded by Act 24
of 1955. The High Court accordingly rejected the petitions filed
by the Board and directed the Board in the petitions filed by the
tenants "not to proceed further under the notices issued" against
the kanam-tenants.
i30
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
(1966] 3 SC R
The two questions raised in the appeals may now be consider-
-ed. Counsel for the appellants says that whereas under the Proclamation of 1910 and the rules framed thereunder there is a statutory fixation of Miclzavaram and the renewal fee in respect of the
lands held by kanam-tenants belonging to the Devaswoms which
later came to be vested in the Board, Act 24 of 1955 only applies
to kanam-tenants holding lands under contracts with jenmis. The
relation between the je11mi and the kanam-tenant in respect of
lands Dcvaswom "Incorporated" or "Unincorporated" is, it is urged,
governed by the tenns of the Proclamation and the rules framed
thereunder relating to fixation of Miclzavaram and renewal fee,
whereas Act 24 of 1955 deals with liability to pay jenmikaram in
respect of land held under an engagement by a kanam-tenant with
a jenmi. In support of this contention, reliance is placed primarily
upon the definitions in s. 2 of the Act of "Jenmikaram", "Jenml",
"Renewal fee" "Holding", "Kanam" and "Michavaram.
1bc
expression "Jenmikaram" was defined by s. 2 (13) as the amount
"payable in respect of that holding or land under the provisions
of this Act by the kanam-tenant to the jenmi every year in lieu of
all claims of the jenmi in respect of the holding, or land and shall
be the sum total of the mic/zararam and the fractional fee"; "ka11amtenant" was defined by s. 2 (I 2) as a person who holds land on
kanarn tenure; and a "Jenmi" was defined in s. 2 (3) as "a person
immediately under whom a kanam-tenant holds''. "Renewal fee"
was defined ins. 2 (11) as fee or fees payable by a kanam-tenant to
his jenmi under the contract of tenancy for the renewal of the legal
relationship under which the kanam-tenant has been holding any
land. "Holding" was defined by s. 2 (2) as a parcel or parcels
of land held under a single engagement by a tenant as a kanam
from a jemni and shall include any portion of a holding as
above defined which the jenmi and kanam-tenant have agreed to
treat as a separate holding. By s. 2 (4) "Kanam" meant a demise
with the incidents SP<!cified therein. "Miclzamram" was defined
by s. 2 (6) as meaning the balance of money or produce or both
payable periodically under the contract of tenancy to the jenmi
after deducting from the pa/tom the interest due on the kanam
amount and p11ra11kadam, if any.
Relying upon these definitions
it was urged that the Act applies only to land held under a contract
of tenancy and not to land in respect of which the Michavaram
and the renewal fee are governed by rules framed under the Proclamation of 1910. It was claimed that the definitions in the
Act disclosed clearly an intention not to interfere with the relation
between the ka11am-tenants and jenmis in respect of the Devaswom
Iands-"lncorporated" or "Unincorporated". This argument in
substance canvasses the plea that the relations between kanamtenants of the Devaswom lands were not governed by contracts.
This plea is, in our judgment, without substance. It is true
that hy Part JI of the Rules dated November '· 1910 ·issued in
A
•
B
c
D
•
F
G
H
I
·('
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DEVASWOM BOARD v. YAMANA SHETTY (Shah, J.)
731
exercise of the powers under cl. 9 of the Proclamation of 1910, rules
were framed for fixation and collection of "michavaram", "paattom",
renewal fee and other dues in respect of Sirkar Devaswoms and
other religious institutions. By cl. 13 of the Rules, rent in respect of
all Devaswom lands held under kanam tenure was to be fixed in
accordance with the provisions of Part II of those Rules and the
kanam-leases are to be renewed every fifteen years as provided in
cl. 16. By cl. 25 it was provided that before the introduction of
the new rates of rent, a rough Pattah will be furnished to each
tenant, showing the details of his holding, rent to be paid, the
kanam amount, interest deductions and renewal fees fixed on the
kanam holding, if any, Provision was then made in els. 27, 28 &
29 for lodging objections relating to the draft Pattah and determination thereof, and for the issue of a final Pattah in Form C
under the signature of the Devaswom Commissioner setting out
the particulars of his holding, the rent due from him in kind as
well as in money including miscellaneous items, the kanam amounts,
interest deductions and renewal fees on kanam lands held by him
and the number of instalments in which the rent was payable.
Clause 29 further provided that the Pattah so issued shall be considered to be sufficient acknowledgment by the Government of the
tenant's right to occupy the land or lands comprised in his holding
on the conditions specified in the Pattah and that the tenant's
obligations on these conditions shall be embodied in a corresponding kychit. By paragraph-3 of the supplementary rules dated
July 17, 19Jl which were intended to regulate the administration
of lands belonging to Sirkar Devaswoms the rights and obligations
under the Pattah were prescribed, and by sub-paragraph (f) of that
paragraph it was provided that the obligations under a Pattah
shall be embodied in a kychit in Form Appendix II which each
Devaswom tenant receiving a Pattah shall execute. The Form in
Appendix JI was as follows :
"Kychit executed by Pattadar No ......... of. ...•• _
Desam ...... Village ...... Taluk relating to Devaswom
properties in group ...... of Cochin State before the
Devaswom Katcherry (Office).
In view of the grant of original Pattah No .....
granted from the Devaswam relating to properties in my
possession and which are Devaswam Janmam lands,
the Paattam Michavaram (annual rent) Puravka (customary dues) etc. will be paid by me after necessary cleaning
the quantity of paddy according to kist mentioned in the
Patta. After payment in kind and cash I shall take a
receipt for the same. In case of default for any instalment, I shall pay the proper interest for such sum. In
the alternative if I cause any loss to the Devaswam, I
agree to the realization of such losses caused to Devaswam
732
SUPREME
COURT
llBPORTS
[1966] 3 S.C.R.
by taking appropriate legal steps by the Devaswam against
me.
Besides I am bound hy all the orders of the Dewan
from time to time made under the Royal Proclamation
of 29th Makaram 1085 (11-2-1910)."
The scheme of the Rules clearly was that an offer of a Pattah
on the terms specified in a rough draft was to be made to a tenant.
The tenant was entitled to raise objections thereto and after the
objections were heard and disposed of, a final Pattah was to be
given to the tenant and the kanam-tenant had to execute the kychit
in favour of the State. The terms of the Patta/1 and kychit evidenced
the contract which determined the rights of the kanam-tenant and
the Devaswom. It is true that under the Proclamation of 1910
and the rules framed thereunder, the quantum of Michavaram
and renewal fee was determined in accordance with the rules.
But the kychit constituted an engagement with the Board, and
land held by a kanam-tenant under the kychit was a holding within
the meaning of Act 24 of 1955. The Pattah constituted a demise
within the meaning of sub-s. (4) of s. 2, Micha1·aram defined in
s. 2 (6) was deemed payable under the contract of tenancy, and
renewal fee under s. 2 (11) wa• payable under that contract of
tenancy. We are therefore of the view that the definitions of
'holding', 'Michavaram', 'Kanam', 'Renewal fee' and 'Je11mikaram'
in s. 2 of Act 24 of 1955 applied to all lands held by kanam-tenants
whether the lands held were Devaswom or non-Devaswom.
It is true that the Proclamation of 1910 and the rules framed
thereunder have not been repealed by the Act. But they could
not be repealed for reasons which are obvious. The machinery for
grant of Pattah and the execution of kychit was prescribed under
those rules. The repeal »f the Proclamation and the rules framed
thereunder would have necessitated a fresh enactment under which
the terms which were to govern the relations between the jenmi
and the ka11am-tenant were determined. Again repeal of the
Proclamation would have necessitated re-enactment of els. 2 &
3 thereof which set up a Common Trust and prescribed the management through the Devaswom Department. Again the rules framed
by the Diwan set up machinery for fixation of rent and other dues
and for recovery thereof in respect of lands held on kanam and
other tenures as well.
No inference may therefore arise from
the notifications issued by the State after enactment of Act 24 of
1955 in pursuance of the rules and Proclamation of 1910 that the
Act was not intended to apply to ka11am-tenants holding lands
from Devaswoms. The notifications dated February 4, 1958, and
July I 1958 issued by the Kerala Government in exercise of the
power~ conferred by cl. 9 of the Cochin Proclamation amended
the supplementary rules regulating the administration of lands
belonging to Sirkar Devaswoms and thereby enabled tenants from
whom paddy demand was due according to Pattah to deliver the
B
D
l!.
F
•
H
A
B
•
c
D
•
E
F
G
H
DEVASWOM BOARD v. YAMANA SHETTY (Shah, /.)
733
same in kind or pay the value of paddy calculated at the average
nirak rate published by the Government. The notifications are
in general terms and could apply to tenures other than those governed
by the statute enacted by the Legislature. The Act must be deemed
therefore to have partially superseded the Proclamation and the
rules framed in so far as the latter related to the rights and obligations of the kanam-tenants in respect of land held by them from
the Devaswom Board.
The plea about infringement of the fundamental rights of the
Devaswom Board by the enactment of Act 24 of 1955 needs no
elaborate discussion. In the High Court the plea was sought to
be sustained on the grounds that the Act infringed the fundamental
rights under Art. 14 and also under Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution.
Before us no argument has been advanced in support of the plea
that the Act infringes the right under Art. 31 (2) and nothing more
need be said about it. Before dealing with the plea of infringement
of the right of equality before the law, it is necessary to set out
the case of the Board as pleaded in their affidavit in reply to the
tenants' claim. In paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit filed by
the Board in reply to the tenants' petition, it was submitted :
"The Jenmies of the erstwhile Cochin area where
alone the Kanom Tenancy Act has been made applicable
have been denied equality before the law and equal protection of the laws in enacting the Kanom Tenancy Act.
The Legislature discriminates the Jenmies of the Cochin
area as against Jenmies similarly situated in the Travancore
and Malabar areas of the State. The classification made
is unreasonable and there is no reasonable nexus between
the classification and the object sought to be achieved
by the Act. It is therefore submitted that the Kanom
Tenancy
Act, XXIV of 1955, offends Article 14 of
the Constitution."
In petition No. 102 of 1958 filed by the Devaswom Board, by paragraph 9 (e) it was submitted :
"The Kanom Tenancy Act offends Article 14 of the
Constitution in that the Jenmies in the erstwhile Cochin
State have been denied equality before law and the equal
protection of the laws. It discriminates the Jenmies
of the Cochin area as against the Jenmies similarly situated
in Travancore and Malabar areas of the Kerala State.
The grouping of Kanom tenants in Cochin area for purposes of legislation is not based on any reasonable classification or conceived in the interests of the general public."
The argument raised on beh&lf of the Board in the two sets of
petitions is that the Act only applies to the Cochin area and does
734
5UPR.t:ME
COURT
REPOl.TS
[1966) 3 S.C.R.
not apply to the whole State of Kerala which consists of three
regions, viz., Travancore, Cochin and Malabar and is on that account
discriminatory. The argument assumes that the principal incidents
of the kanam-tenure in the three regions of the Kerala State are
identical and that when Act 24 of 1955 wa' enacted. without any
rational ground a distinction was made between the Jenmies in
respect of kanam lands in the Travancore and Cochin regions and
after the reorganisation of the State in 1936 that discrimination
was perpetuated even qua the Jenmies in the Malabar region. This
assumption on the finding recorded by the High Court on an extensive review of the legislative history in the three regions has
no basis in fact.
The relation between the Jenmies and the kanamtenants in the Travancore region was governed by the Jenmi and
Kudiyan Regulation No. 5 of 1071, as later modified by Regulation
No. 12 of I I 08.
The incidents of the k1111a111-lenure in Travancore
region were substantially different from those prevailing in Cochin.
The customary ka11a111-lenure in Malabar region was governed by
Madras Act I of I 887 which was amended by Act 1 of 1900.
Later
the Madras Legislature passed the Malabar Tenancy Act 14 of
1930 which was amended by Acts 33 of I 95 I and 7 of 1954.
From
a review of the provisions of the Act, the High Court observed
that no renewal fee could be levied from a kanamdar in the Malabar
region and that fixity of tenure was conferred by s. 25 of Act 14
of 1930. that where'" in the Malabar region no renewal fee was
required to be paid. in the Travancore region fractional fee was
charged and that in the Cochin region a renewal fee calculated
under s. 28 was payable under the Cochin Tenancy Act 15of1938.
The Jenmie.1 in the three regions were therefore not similarly circumstanced. If the Legislature with a view to agrarian reform
selected the Cochin region and enacted an Act limited to that
region, it could not he said, merely on the ground that it applies
only to the Cochin region, that it is based on no intelligible differentia.
The Board only pleaded that by the enactment of the Act there was
discrimination between Jenmies in the three regions.
In the absence
of any pica and proof about relative fertility of the soil, nature
of crops raised, extent of holdings, historical development of the
kanam-tenure and the terms on which the kanam-tenants hold
land from the Jenmies, it would be impossible to decide whether
the Jemnies in the three regions are similarly circumstanced and
that the Legislature has made an unlawful discrimination by providing a different tariff of payments.
A person relying upon the
plea of unlawful discrimination which infringes a guarantee of
equality before the Jaw or equal protection of the laws must set
out with sufficient particulars his plea showing that between the
persons similarly circumstanced, discrimination has been made
which is founded on no intelligible differentia.
If the claimant
for relief establishes similaritybetween persons who are subjected
to a differential treatment it may lie upon the State lo establish
A
i
B
•
c
D
'
E
F •
G
H
A
B
c
DEVASWOM BOARD V. YAMANA SHBTTY (Shah, /.)
735
that the differentiation is based on a rational object sought to be
achieved by the Legislature. In the present case the pleading of
the Devaswom Board is wholly insufficient to discharge the onus
of proving similarity of status between the Jenrnies in the three
regions, and the findings recorded by the High Court which are
not challenged before us clearly show that there is a difference
between the relations governing the Jenrnies and the kanarn-tenants
in the three regions. The plea about infringement of the fundamental right under Art. 14 of the Constitution must therefore
fail.
The appeals are dismissed with costs.
One hearing fee in
all the appeals.
Appeals dismissed.