# THE STATE CF MADRAS AND ANOTHER v. V. SRINIV ASA A YYANGAR

- **Citation:** [1955] 2 S.C.R. 907
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955
- **Bench:** N. H. Bhagwati, Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-cf-madras-and-another-v-v-sriniv-asa-a-yyangar-1267
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

907
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act,
(Madras Act XXVI of 1948), s.1(3)(4), s. 3(b)-Madras Estates Land
Act I of 1908, s. 3(2)-Notification under s. 1(4) of Madras
Act
XXVI of 1948-Comprising a part of village-Darmila or post-settlement inam in respect of portion of village-Whether the part vests
in the Stat!! under s. 3(b) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948-Estate
within the meaning of s. 1 (3) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 read
with s. 3(2) of Madras Act I of 1908-Whether includes part of th&
estate-Compensation to Darmila
Inamdar-Darmila minor inamW hether protected by s. 20 of the Act XXVI of 1948.
At the time of passing of the Madras
Estates
(Abolition and
Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act
(Madras Act XXVI of 1948), a
15/16th portion of village Karuppur situated within the Zamindari of
Ramanathapuram was held by the inamdars under a pre-settlement
grant confirmed by the British Government, the estate being permanently settled in 1802.
The remaining one-sixteenth portion
was
held by the holders of darmila or post-settlement inams made by the
proprietor of the estate.
In exercise
of the powers conferred
by
s. 1 ( 4) of. the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the State of Madras issued a
notification dated 22nd \'..!gust 1949 bringing the Act into force as
regard~ the Ramanatha;,,uram estate
from 7th Seot
0 'Tlber 1949, the
latter Zamindari including one-sixteenth part of Laruppur village.
" )e respondent-the holder of the one-sixteenth inam-contended
tfat ur.der s. 1 ( 3) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the State of
Madras had power to notify only what would be estates as defined
in s. 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908 and that onesixteenth part of the village of Karuppur included in the notification
was 1wt an estate as dcfir.e<l in that section and the
notification
was therefore ultra vires.
Held (repelling the contention) that when th<': <larmila inam does
not relate to the entire village but only to a fraction of it, it must be
held to retain its chara:ter as part of the estate in the hands of tl1e
inamdar al'.d when the est:.c1te is notified under s. 1 ( 4) of the Madras
Act XXVI of i 948 the inam will vest in the State under s. 3 ( b) of
the Madras Act XXVI of l 948 and therefore one-sixteenth portion
of the village of Karuppur forming a darmila inam will vest in the
State.
Under the provisions of the Madras Act XXVI of
1948 the
darmila minor inamdar is entitled to claim
compensation for the
ttansfer of his portion of the estate to the Government.
3-85 S.C. lndia/59.
1955
October 21.
1955
The State of
Madras and
another
v.
V. Srinivasa
Ayyangar
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
Darmila 1ninor inam is not protected by s. 20 of the Act.
B1"o1hmayya v. Achiraju ( [19~2] I.LR. 45 Mad. 716) and Narayana~·:i'j<! v. Suryanarayudu ( f 19391 66 1.1\. 278)) referred to.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuRrsmcnoN :
Civil
Appeal
No. 219 of 1954.
On appeal from the Judgment and Order dated
the 4t:1 day of April
1952 of the Madras High Court
in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 8302 of 1950.
V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (R.
Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for
the appellant.
R. Kesava Iyengar,
(M. S. K. Iyengar, with rum)
for the respondent.
1955.
October 21. The Judgment of the
Court
was delivered by
VENKATARAMA
AYYAR J.-This
appeal
raises a
question of considerable
importance
as
to the
rights
of
holders of darmila or post-settlement inams of
portions of a village under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras
Act XXVI of 1948), hereinafter
referred to
as
the
Act. The subject-matter of
this appeal is
an onesixteenth share
in the village of Karuppm situated
within
the
ambit
of the Zamindari of
Ramanatha
puram. The holders of this ancient Zamindari were,
during the 18th Century, the virtual rulers of that
part of South India, and were known as
Sethupathis
or the Lords of Rameswaram and the adjacent isles
and seas.
In
1757
Muthu
Bijaya
Ragunatha,
the
then Rajah of Raman

## Text

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
THE STATE CF MADRAS AND ANOTHER
v.
V. SRINIV ASA A YYANGAR.
[N. H. BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and
B. P. SINHA JJ.]
907
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act,
(Madras Act XXVI of 1948), s.1(3)(4), s. 3(b)-Madras Estates Land
Act I of 1908, s. 3(2)-Notification under s. 1(4) of Madras
Act
XXVI of 1948-Comprising a part of village-Darmila or post-settlement inam in respect of portion of village-Whether the part vests
in the Stat!! under s. 3(b) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948-Estate
within the meaning of s. 1 (3) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 read
with s. 3(2) of Madras Act I of 1908-Whether includes part of th&
estate-Compensation to Darmila
Inamdar-Darmila minor inamW hether protected by s. 20 of the Act XXVI of 1948.
At the time of passing of the Madras
Estates
(Abolition and
Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act
(Madras Act XXVI of 1948), a
15/16th portion of village Karuppur situated within the Zamindari of
Ramanathapuram was held by the inamdars under a pre-settlement
grant confirmed by the British Government, the estate being permanently settled in 1802.
The remaining one-sixteenth portion
was
held by the holders of darmila or post-settlement inams made by the
proprietor of the estate.
In exercise
of the powers conferred
by
s. 1 ( 4) of. the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the State of Madras issued a
notification dated 22nd \'..!gust 1949 bringing the Act into force as
regard~ the Ramanatha;,,uram estate
from 7th Seot
0 'Tlber 1949, the
latter Zamindari including one-sixteenth part of Laruppur village.
" )e respondent-the holder of the one-sixteenth inam-contended
tfat ur.der s. 1 ( 3) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the State of
Madras had power to notify only what would be estates as defined
in s. 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908 and that onesixteenth part of the village of Karuppur included in the notification
was 1wt an estate as dcfir.e<l in that section and the
notification
was therefore ultra vires.
Held (repelling the contention) that when th<': <larmila inam does
not relate to the entire village but only to a fraction of it, it must be
held to retain its chara:ter as part of the estate in the hands of tl1e
inamdar al'.d when the est:.c1te is notified under s. 1 ( 4) of the Madras
Act XXVI of i 948 the inam will vest in the State under s. 3 ( b) of
the Madras Act XXVI of l 948 and therefore one-sixteenth portion
of the village of Karuppur forming a darmila inam will vest in the
State.
Under the provisions of the Madras Act XXVI of
1948 the
darmila minor inamdar is entitled to claim
compensation for the
ttansfer of his portion of the estate to the Government.
3-85 S.C. lndia/59.
1955
October 21.
1955
The State of
Madras and
another
v.
V. Srinivasa
Ayyangar
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
Darmila 1ninor inam is not protected by s. 20 of the Act.
B1"o1hmayya v. Achiraju ( [19~2] I.LR. 45 Mad. 716) and Narayana~·:i'j<! v. Suryanarayudu ( f 19391 66 1.1\. 278)) referred to.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuRrsmcnoN :
Civil
Appeal
No. 219 of 1954.
On appeal from the Judgment and Order dated
the 4t:1 day of April
1952 of the Madras High Court
in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 8302 of 1950.
V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (R.
Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for
the appellant.
R. Kesava Iyengar,
(M. S. K. Iyengar, with rum)
for the respondent.
1955.
October 21. The Judgment of the
Court
was delivered by
VENKATARAMA
AYYAR J.-This
appeal
raises a
question of considerable
importance
as
to the
rights
of
holders of darmila or post-settlement inams of
portions of a village under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras
Act XXVI of 1948), hereinafter
referred to
as
the
Act. The subject-matter of
this appeal is
an onesixteenth share
in the village of Karuppm situated
within
the
ambit
of the Zamindari of
Ramanatha
puram. The holders of this ancient Zamindari were,
during the 18th Century, the virtual rulers of that
part of South India, and were known as
Sethupathis
or the Lords of Rameswaram and the adjacent isles
and seas.
In
1757
Muthu
Bijaya
Ragunatha,
the
then Rajah of Ramanathapuram, made a grant of
the whole of the village of Karuppur to a number of
persons for
various charitable purposes.
In
1802,
the estate
was
permanently settled and
an rstimrari
sanad was issued
in favour
of the Rajah. Before
that date, the donees under the grant of 1757 representing an
one-sixteenth
share
had
abandoned
the
village, and in consequence, the inam had eo extanti
been
resumed.
At
the
permanent
settlement,
thi•
one-sixteenth part was included in the assets of the
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
909
Zamindari, and taken into the account in fixing the peishkush thereon.
Subsequent to the permanent settlement, on some date which does not appear on the
record, Rani Mangaleswari, the then holder of the
Zamindari, made a fresh grant of the one-sixteenth
part which had been resumed, to the inamdars who
held the remaining 15/16th portion of the village
under the grant of 1757.
On 31-12-1863
the Inam
Commissioner confirmed the grant of 1757, and issued
an inam certificate in respect of the 15/16th portion
of the village. The position, therefore,
when the Act
was passed was that while a 15/16th portion was held
by
the
inamdars
under
a pre-settiement grant confirmed
by
the
British Government, the remaining
one-sixteenth portion was
held
under
post-settlement
grant made by the proprietor of the estate.
The Act came into force
on 19-4-1949. Under section l ( 4) of the Act, certain sections thereof were to
come into force at once
and the other sections on such
date as the Government might by notification
appoint
in respect of any zamindari; under-tenure, or inam
estate.
In
exercise
of the powers
conferred by
this
section,
the
appellant
issued
a
notification
on
22-8-1949 bringing the Act into force as regards tht
Ramanathapuram
estace
from
7-9-1949.
Among
the
villages
mentioned
as
comprised in the
Zamindari
was
"Karuppur
(part)" described as an under-tenure.
It is common ground that the part referred to in this
notification
is
the
one-sixteenth part,
which forms
the subject-matter of this appeal.
The respondent who represents the holders of this
inam filed the application out of which the present
appeal arises, under article 226 of the Constitution
for a writ of certiorari quashing the notification dated
22-8-1949 as ultra vires. The ground of attack was
that under section 1(3) of the Act, the State had power
to notify only what would be estates as defined in
section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
(Madras Act I of 1908), and that the part of the
village of Karuppur included in the notification was
not an estate as defined in that section. Section 3(2)
of Act I of 1908, so far as is material, is as follows :
1955
The State of
Madras and
another
v.
V. Srinivasa
,4.Y)'angar
Venkatarama
Ayyar J.
1955
The State of
Madras and
another
v.
V. Srinivasa
A)!Yangar
Venkatarama
M•' J.
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955}
"Estate" means--
( a) any permanentiy settled estate or temporarily
settled zamindari ;
(b) any
portion
of
such
permanently
settled
estate or
temporarily
settled
zainindari
which
1s
separately registered in the office of the Collector ;
( c) any unsettled palaiyam or jagir ;
( d) any inam village of which the grant has 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 m title of the grantee or
grantees.
*
*
•
*
( e) any portion consisting of one or more villages
of any of the estates specified above in .clauses (a),
(b) and ( c)
which is held on a permanent undertenure".
The contention of the respondent was that as the
grant in question related only to a fraction of a village,
it could not be notified as an under-tenure, as under
section 3(2) ( e) an under-tenure would be an estate
only if it related to a whole village or villages. The
appellant conceded that the inam in question was not
an under-tenure as defined in section 3(2)(e), as it
comprised only part of a village,
but contended that
even though it was not in itself an estate, it vn1s,
nevertheless, {Jart of the Zamindari of
Ramanathapuram,
being a post-settlement grant of portion of a
vilbge comprised therein, and that when that estate
was notified, the entiretv of it including the inam i11
question must. vest in the Government under section
3 (b) of the Act. The respondent demurred to this
contention.
In addition,
he raised
the
further contention that even
if post-settlement
minor
inams
were within the operation of the Act, they would be
protected by
section
20
of the Act, which runs as
follows:
"20(1)
In cases not governed by sections 18 and
19, where, before the notified date, a landholder has
created any right in any land (whether by way of
lease or otherwise)
including rights in
any forest,
.
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
911
mines dr minerals, quarries, fisheries or ferries, the
transaction shall be deemed to be valid ; and all rights
and obligations arising thereunder, on or after the
notified date, 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 :
Provided
further that any such right created
on
or after the 1st day of July 1945 shall not be enforceable
against the Government, unless it was created
for a period not exceeding one year :
Provided also that where such right was created
for a period exceeding one year,
unless it relates to
the private land of the landholder within the meaning of section 3, clause (10), of the Estates Land Act,
the Government may, if, in their opinion, it is in the
public interest to do so, by notice given to the person
concerned, terminate the right with effect from such
date as may be specified in the notice, not being
earlier than three months from the date thereof".
The argument of the respondent was that a postsettlement minor inam would be a right in land created by a landholder falling within section 20, that
the notification of the estate under section 1(3) would
not ipso facto divest the inamdar of his title to the
lands, and that he would be entitled to hold them
subject to any action that might properly be taken
by the State under section 20.
The learned Judges of the Madras High Court
agreed with the appellant that post-settlement minor
inams fell within the operation of the Act ; but they
accepted the contention
of the
respondent that
they
were governed
by section
20 of the Act.
As it was
common ground that the State had not proceeded
under that section, they held that the notification
was ultra vires, and accordingly quashed the same in
so far as it related to the inam forming part of Karuppur village. The appellant applied
to the High
Court for leave to appeal
to this Court against this
decision, and though the value of the subject-matter
was far below the appeaiable limit, the learned Judges
granted a certificate under article 133(l)(c) on the
19'55
The Stau of
Madras and
another
v.
V. Srinivasa
Ayyangar
V enkatarama
AyyarJ.
1955
The State of
Madras and
anothn
v.
Y. Sriniua.ro
bangar
Ymkatarama
41,., J.
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
ground that the question involved was one of great
public importance. That is
how the appeal
comes
before us.
Two questions arise for decision in this appeal : (1)
Are post-settlement minor inams within the operation
of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 ? (2) If they are, are
they governed by section 20 of the Act ?
On the first question, the appellant does not contend that the inam in question is in itself an estate
as defined in section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land
Act and liable as
such to be notified under the
Act.
His contention is
tllat when the Zamindari of
Ramanathapuram was
notified-and there
is
no
dispute that it was validly notified, as it was a permanently settled estate falling within section 3(2) (a) of
the Madras
Estates
Land Act-minor post-settlement
inams of lands within the Zamindari would vest in
the State as part of the Zamindari under section 3(b)
of the Act. Section . 3(b) is, omitting what is not
material, as follows :
"With effect
on and from the notified
date
and
save as otherwise expressly provided in mis Act, ....... .
. . . . . . the entire estate . ... shall stand transferred to the
Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances".
The point for
decision
is
whether post-settlement
minor inams are parts of the estate out of which they
were granted. If they are, then they will vest in the
Government under section 3(b ). If they are not, they
will
remain unaffected
by
the
notification
of the
parent estate.
The status of holders of these inams had been the
subject of considerable divergence of judicial opinion
in
the
Madras
High Court. To appreciate this,
reference must
be
made to the following definition
of 'landholder' in section 3(5) of the Madras Estates
Land Act:
"Landholcicr" means a person owning an estate
or part thereof and includes every person entitled to
collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the
estate by virtue of any transfer from the owner or his
predecessor-in-title
or of any
order of a
competent
•
1
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
913
Court or of any provision of law".
Leaving out the inclusive portion of the definition as
not relevant to the present question, it will be seen
that owners of parts of an estate would also be landholders. The question
then arose for decision whether
darmi!a minor inamdars were landholders as defined
in section 3(5). of the Estates Land Act. If they were,
the
tenants would acquire occupancy
rights
under
section
6,
and proceedings against them could
be
taken only in the revenue courts and not in the civil
courts, and in general,
the
rights and obligations of
the inamdar and the tenants would be governed by
the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act. One
view
was that as the inamdars had to pay quit rent
or jodi to the grantors, their, status could not be that
of owners and therefore they could not be said to own
parts of an estate. The contrary view was that the
inamdars were
in substance
owners of
the
lands
granted to them, and that the liability to make a
fixed annual
payment
did
not
detract from
their
character
as owners, and
they would be landholders ·
owning parts of an estate. In view of this conflict of
opinion, the
question was referred to the decision of
a Full Bench in Brahmayya v. Achiraju(t ), which held
by a majority that minor darmila inamdars were landholders as defined in section 3(5) of the Estates Land
Act.
This
decision
was based both
on the ground
that the inamdars were in the position of owners of
parts of an estate and that they were also persons entitled to collect rent, within the inclusive portion of
the definition.
· ·
In Narayanaraju v. Suryanarayudu( 2 ), the question
whether the grantee of a portion of a village subsequent to the settlement
was a landholder as defined
in section 3(5) came up for decision before the Privy
Council.
After reviewing the
authorities and the conflicting views expressed therein, the Board agreed with
the opinion
expressed by the majority of the learned
Judges in Brahmayya v. Achiraju( 1 ), and held that the
grantee of a post-settlement minor inam would be a
landholder on both the grounds mentioned in their
(!I [1922] I.L.R. 45 Mad. 716.
(2) [1939] 66 I.A. 278.
1955
The Slate of
Madras and
another
v.
V. Srinivasa
Ayyangar
Venkatarama
Ayyar J.
1955
TM StaJe of
Madras and
another
v.
V. Srinivasa
Ayyangar
Venkatarama
Ayyar ].
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
judgments.
They discarded "the doctrine
that so
long as the zamindar reserves
any
mterest, however
insignificant, the permanent grantee from him cannot
be the owner'', and observed
that the words "part of
the estate" occurring in the definition must be
given
their prima facie
meaning. The Board felt greater
difficulty in accepting the view that
the
inamdar was
a landholder entitled to collect rent within the inclusive
portion of the definition.
But they
expressed
themselves
satisfied on either ground
that "the Full
Bench
decision
of
1922
represents
a
careful
and
reasonable
solution
of a stubborn ambiguity
in
the
Act, and that it ought not now to be overruled having
regard to the time which has elapsed and to the character of the interests affected thereby". Thus, it was
settled law in Madras at the time when Act XXVI of
1948 was passed that minor darmila inamdars were
owners of parts of an estate. Construing section 3(b)
in the light of the law as then accepted, when a notified
estate vests
in its entirety in
the
State under that
prov1S1on, a minor darmila inam which forms part of
it must also vest in it.
Sri R. Kesava Ivengar learned counsel for
the
respondent, argued that decis;ons
on section 3(5)
ot
the Madras Estates Land Act on the meaning of the
word 'landholder' as
defined
therein, could
not he
usefully referred to for construing the true scope of
section 3(b) of Act XXVI of 1948, as the definition
in the Madras Estates Land Act was only for purposes of settling the right5 of landlords and tenants,
and would be irrelevant for determining the rights of
the inamdar as aga;nst the State. But the ground of
the
decision in Bralzmayya v. Ac!ii•·aju(')
and
Narayanaraju v. Suryanarayudu(')
is that the grantee of
the inam is in the position of an owner of the part of
the estate granted to him, and that would be relevant when the controversy is as to his true status,
whether the dispute is between the landlord and the
tenant or between the inamdar and the State. If the
inamdar is
owner in relation to his tenants, it would
be illogical to hold that he is not that, in relation to
(!) [1922) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 716.
(2) [1939) 66 I.A. 278.
,.
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
915
the State. The question is, in our opinion, concluded
by section 2(8) of Act XXVI of 1948 which defines a
landholder as including a darmila inamdar, and that
is a statutory recognition of the doctrine laid
down
in Brahmayya v.
Achiraju (1) and Narayanaraju
v.
Suryanarayudu(2)
that darmila inamdars are owners
of parts of an estate. The result then is that when
the <larmila inam does not relate to the entire village
but only to a fraction of it, it must be held to retain
its character as part of the estate in the hands of the
inam<lar, and when the estate is notified under section
1 ( 4) of the Act, the inam will vest in the State under
section 3(b).
It is next argued for the respondent that the Act
makes
no provision for
award of compensation
to
minor darmila inamdars, and that as a statute is not
to be construed as taking away the property
of any
person unless
there is
a provision for
payment of
compensation therefor, these inams should be held to
be outside the operation of the Act. Reference was
made in this connection to section 45 of the Act under
which the
compensation
payable
in
respect
of
an
impartible
estate-and
Ramanathapuram
is
oneis to be apportioned dfter
payment of
debts
among
the members of the family. It is said that under this
section the respondent would
have no right to share
in it. This contention is clearly erroneous. The material provisions relating to
the award of compensation
are sections 25, 27, 37 and 44.
Under section 25, the
compensation is to be determined for the estate as a
whole
and not separately for
each
of the interests
therein. Section 27 lavs down how the basic income in
the case: of zamindari.s
is to be fixed.
Under section
27(i), it has to include one-third of the gross annual
ryotwari demand in respect of all lands in the estate,
and
under section 27(iv)
"one-third
of the average
net annual miscellaneous revenue
derived from
all
other sources in the estate specified in section 3 (b) ".
Thus, the income from the lands comprised in the
minor inam which is a part of the estate is included
in the total
income of the zamindari. Under section
(I) [1922] I.L.R. 45 Mad. 716.
(2) [1939] 66 I.A. 278.
The State of
Madras and
another
v.
V. Srinivasa
Ayyangar
VenkataramQ
,4.yyar ].
1955
The State of
Madras and
another
v.
Y. Srinivasa
Ayyangllf'
Yenkatarama
Ayyar ],
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
37,
the compensation payable in respect of an
estate
is calculated in terms of the basic income on the scale
prescribed therein: Section 44 enacts that the Tribunal
is
to "apportion this compensation among the
principal
landholder
and any
other persons
whose
rights or interests in the estate stand transferred to
the Government' under section 3(b )". There cannot
be any doubt on . these provisions that the darmila
minor inamdar is a person who is entitled to claim
compensation
for
the
transfer
of
his
portion
of
the estate to the Government. Then comes section
45
on which the respondent bases
his
contention.
That applies only
to the distribution of the compensation
determined
under
section
44
as
payable to the principal landholder, when he is the holder
of an
impartible estate.
It
leaves
untouched the
rights of minor darmila inamdars to claim compensation under section 44. The contention of the respondent that the Act provides no compensation
to them,
and that they should therefore be held
to fall outside
the Act must accordingly be rejected.
·
(2) That brings us on to the second question whether a post-settlement minor inam
is a right in land
created
by
a landholder within the intendment of
section 20 of the Act. At the
very
outset, it seems
somewhat inconsistent to hold that a darmila minor
inam is patt of an estate, and also that it is governed
by section 20. If it is part of an estate, it must
automatically vest in the Government under section
3(b ). But if it falls within section 20, the title to it will
continue to stand in the inamdar with a right in the.
Government to take action under- the third proviso,
subject to the conditions laid down therein. It was
argued for the respondent
that section 3 operates
on
its own terms only "save as otherwise expressly provided herein", and that section 20
was such
a prov1s10n.
It is
somewhat difficult to follow
this argument, because if section 20 applied to darmila minor
inams, then they could never fall within the operation of section 3'(b ). And how is . this result to be
reconciled
with the conclusion that they are parts of
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
917
the estate, and that the inamdar is a landholder for
purposes of the Act ?
But it is argued for the respondent that the words
"rights in land created by landlord"
are of the widest
import and would take in d;irmila minor inams. The
point for decision is whether this contention is
correct.
We start with this that a darmila
minor inamdar is
a landholder as defined in section 2(8) of the Act,
and he is that, by reason of his being the owner of a
part of the estate. Can such a person be held to be
one who has obtained a right in the land from
the
landholder within section 20 ? The Act makes a clear
distinction
between estates held
by landholders
and
rights and interests held by other persons in or over
estates.
Section 3(b)
enacts
that when there
is
a
notification under section 1 ( 4), the entire estate shall
stand transferred to the Government and vest in it.
We have held that the part of the estate belonging
to a darmila inamdar would vest in the Government.
Section 3 ( c) provides
that on notification
all
rights
in or over the
estate
shall cease
and terminate.
Section 3(b) and section 3(c) deal with two distinct
matters which may respectively be described in broad
terms as ownership of the estate and rights in or over
estate
not amountir.g to
ownership, and these two
categqries are
mutually exclusive. Now, turning to
section
20, it protects rights in land by way of lease
or otherwise created by
the
landholder
before the
notified date. In this context, and having regard to
the
distinction
between
estates
under
section
3 (b)
and rights over estates under section 3 ( c), the rights
mentioned in section
20 can only refer to the rights
dealt with in section 3(c), and not to ownership which
is within section 3 (b). When, therefore, the transaction for which protection is claimed under section 20
is one which vests ownership of the estate or a portion thereof in the transferee, it will fall outside the
section.
In other words,
section 20
has
no application to
transactions
by
which
a person becomes a
lanr1holder by reason
of ownership
of even a part of
the estate being transferred to him, and that being
the character of a darmila minor inam it is not pro1955
The State of
Madras and
another
v.
V. Srinfoasa
Ayyangar
Venkatarama
Ayyar J.
1955
The State of
.. \1.adras and
another
v.
V. Srinivasa
Ayyangar
Venkatarama
Ayyar ].
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
tected by section 20.
There are also indications in the language of section 20 pointing to the same conclusion.
Section 20(2)
provides
that the persons whose rights
are
terminated under the proviso to section 20(1)
shall be
entitled
to compensation having regard to the value
of the right which is terminated and
the unexpired
portion of the period
for which the right
is created.
These words are more appropriate to connote rights
which are to be exercised for specified periods, such
as lease or contract for the exploitation of mines or
forests for a term than "ownership of the estate".
There is one other consideration, which lends support to this conclusion. The object of the Act was
to establish direct relationship between the State and
the tillers of the soil, and to abolish all intermediate
tenures.
In Madras,
the rights and obligations of
intermediate
tenure holders
were regulated
by
the
Madras Estates Land Act, and under that Act the
intermediaries consisted not merely of the holders .of
the estates as defined
in section 3(2) of that Act but
also holders of post-settlement minor inams as settled
by decisions of the highest authority. If the purpose
of the Act is to be fully achieved, it would be necessary
to
abolish
not merely
estates
as
defined
in
section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act but also
darmila minor inams. But jf the
co11tention of the
respondent is to be accepted, it is only the estates
mentioned in section 3(2)
that will, on notification,
vest in the Government and not the minor i nams.
These will continue to be held by the inamdars under
section 20 until they
are
terminated in accordance
with the proviso tl1erein, and surv~ve as islets in the
landscape
even
after
the
parent
estates
have
.disappeared from the scene. The legislation must to this
extent be held to have failed to achieve its purpose.
And this is not all. If the contention of the respondent is correct, then the minor inamdars will
not
mere! y be
unaffected
by
the
Act but will actually
be better off for it. Under section 3 (a) of the Act,
the Madras Estates Land Act stands repealed on and
from the notified date, and as it is by virtue of this
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
919
Act that the tenants became entitled to occupancy
rights, the inamdars would, on notification, be free to
eject tenants. and settll:'. their own terms with them.
\Ne cannot accede to a contention which results not
merely in the frustration of the object of the Act but
further produces
consequences,
the
reverse
of
what
were intended. On the other hand, the contention of
the appellant that minor inams fall outside section 20
and would vest straightaway in the State under section 3 (b) will have the effect of extinguishing the
rights of the inamdars, and enabling the State to issue
ryotwari
pattas
to
the tenants
in oceupation. We
prefer to accept this contention, as it fully effectuates
the intention of the legislature. In the result, we must
hold that the one-sixteenth
portion of the village
of
Karuppur forming a darmila inam will vest in the
Government under section 3 (b) of the Act, and that
the only right of the inamdars is to share in the compensation under the terms of the Act. The petition
of the respondent in so far as it relates to this inam
must be dismissed.
This appeal is accordingly allowed, and in accordance
wit~1 the terms of the
certificate
granting leave,
the appellant will pay the costs of the respondent in
this Court. The parties will be:.ir their own costs in
the court below.
ANANDA BEHERA AND ANOTHER
v.
THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER
[S. R. DAs, AcnNG C. J.,
VIVIAN
BosE,
]AGANNADHADAS,
JAFF.R
IM.'\M and
CHANDRASEKHARA
AIYAR JJ.]
Ft;ndamental Rights, Enforcement of-Oral sale of fishery rights
for future years by owner of estate before it vested in the State by legislation-Nature of such rights-Profit a prendre, if immovable
property requiring registered imtrument for transfer-Such sale, if creates any right to property-Non-recognition by the
State, if transgresses any fundamental 1·ights-Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1)
(/), 31(1)-0rissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952)
-Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), s. 54.
1955
Thi Stat• of
Madras and
anothu
v.
V. Srinivcstt
Ayyangar
Vmkatarama
Ayyar].
1955
Octob., 2 7.