Appeal No 219 of 1954
On appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 4th 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 lyengar M section K Iyengar with him for the respondent
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 one sixteenth share in the village of Karuppur 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 Vijaya 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 istimrari 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 this one sixteenth part was included in the assets of the 909 Zamindari and taken into 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 1516th 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 1516th portion of the village
The position therefore when the Act was passed was that while a 1516th portion was held by the inamdars under a pre settlement 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 14 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 the Ramanathapuram estate 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 32 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 32 of Act I of 1908 so far as is material is as follows 910 Estate means a any permanently settled estate or temporarily settled zamindari b any portion of such permanently settled estate or temporarily settled zamindari which is 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 in 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 under tenure
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 was nevertheless part of the Zamindari of Ramanathapuram being a post settlement grant of portion of a village comprised therein and that when that estate was notified the entirety of it including the inam in question must vest in the Government under section 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 201 In cases not governed by sections IS 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 911 mines or 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 post settlement minor inam would be a right in land created by a landholder falling within section 20 that the notification of the estate under section 13 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 Ka ruppur 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 appealable limit the learned Judges granted a certificate under article 1331c on the 912 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 32 of the Madras Estates Land Act and liable as such to be notified under the Act
His contention is that 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 32 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 3b of the Act
Section 3b is omitting what is not material as follows With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in this 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 3b
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 35 of the Madras Estates Land Act Landholder 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 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 darmila 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 vs Achiraju1 which held by a majority that minor darmila inamdars were landholders as defined in section 35 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 vs Suryanarayudu2 the question whether the grantee of a portion of a village subsequent to the settlement was a landholder as defined in section 35 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 vs Achiraju 1 and held that the grantee of a post settlement minor inam would be a landholder on both the grounds mentioned in their 1 Mad 716
2 1939 66 IA 278 914 judgments
They discarded the doctrine that so long as the zamindar reserves any interest 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 3b in the light of the law as then accepted when a notified estate vests in its entirety in the State under that provision a minor darmila inam which forms part of it must also vest in it
Sri R Kesava lyengar learned counsel for the respondent argued that decisions on section 35 of the Madras Estates Land Act on the meaning of the word landholder  as defined therein could not be usefully referred to for construing the true scope of section 3b of Act XXVI of 1948 as the definition in the Madras Estates Land Act was only for pur poses of settling the rights of landlords and tenants and would be irrelevant for determining the rights of the inamdar as against the State
But the ground of the decision in Brahmayya vs Achiraju1 and Narayanaraju vs Suryanarayudu2 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 1 Mad 716
2 1939 66 IA 278
915 the State
The question is in our opinion concluded by section 28 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 vs Achiraju1 and Narayanaraju vs Suryanarayudu2 that darmila inamdars are owners of parts of an estate
The result then is that when the darmila 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 inamdar and when the estate is notified under section 1 4 of the Act the inam will vest in the State under section 3b
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 proper 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 one is to be apportioned after 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 lays down bow the basic income in the case of zamindaris is to be fixed
Under section 27i it has to include one third of the gross annual ryotwari demand in respect of all lands in the estate and under section 27iv 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 1 Mad 716
2 1939 66 IA 278
116 916 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 3b
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
2That 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 part 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 3b
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 provision
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 3b
And how is this result to be reconciled with the conclusion that they are parts of 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 darmila minor inams
The point for decision is whether this contention is correct
We start with this that a darinila minor inamdar is a landholder as defined in section 28 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 3b enacts that when there is a notification under section 14 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 3c provides that on notification all rights in or over the estate shall cease and terminate
Section 3b and section 3c 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 amounting to ownership and these two categories 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 3b and rights over estates under section 3c the rights mentioned in section 20 can only refer to the rights dealt with in section 3c and not to ownership which is within section 3b
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 landholder 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 pro 918 tected by section 20
There are also indications in the language of section 20 pointing to the same conclusion
Section 202 provides that the persons whose rights are terminated under the proviso to section 201 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 32 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 32 of the Madras Estates Land Act but also darmila minor inams
But if the contention of the respondent is to be accepted it is only the estates mentioned in section 32 that will on notification vest in the Government and not the minor inams
These will continue to be held by the inamdars under section 20 until they are terminated in accordance with the proviso therein and survive as islets in the landscape even after the parent estates have dis appeared 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 merely be unaffected by the Act but will actually be better off for it
Under section 3a of the Act the Madras Estates Land Act stands repealed on and from the notified date and as it is by virtue of this 919 Act that the tenants became entitled to occupancy rights the inamdars would on notification be free to eject tenants and settle their own terms with them
We 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 3b will have the effect of extinguishing the rights of the inamdars and enabling the State to issue ryotwari pattas to the tenants in occupation
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 3b 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 with the terms of the certificate granting leave the appellant will pay the costs of the respondent in this Court
The parties will bear their own costs in the court below


Summary:
At the time of passing of the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act Madras Act XXVI of 1948 a 1516th portion of village Karuppur situated within the Zamindari of Ramanathapuram was hold 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 section 14 of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the State of Madras issued a notification dated 22nd August 1949 bringing the Act into force as regards the Ramanathapuram estate from 7th September 1949 the latter Zamindari including one sixteenth part of Haruppur village
The respondent the holder of the one sixteenth inam contended that under section 13 of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the State of Madras bad power to notify only what would be estates as defined in section 32 of the Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908 and that one sixteenth part of the village of Karuppur included in the notification was not an estate as defined in that section and the notification was therefore ultra vires
Held repelling the contention that when the darmila 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 inamdar and when the estate is notified under section 14 of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the inam will vest in the State under section 3b of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 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 transfer of his portion of the estate to the Government
115 908 Darmila minor inam is not protected by section 20 of the Act
Brahmayya vs Achiraju 1922 ILR and Nara yanaraju vs Suryanarayudu 1939 66 IA 278 referred to