l Appeals Nos
2480 to 2509 2543 to 2546 2547 to 2553 2559 2575 2576 and 2602 of 1966 214 to 217 672 to 674 1053 1054 1055 1062 1063
1457 and 1458 of 1967 and 162 672  673 and 1000 of 1968
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated June 24 1966 and July 20 1966 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos
1542 of 1965 etc
V Vedantachari K C Rajappa section Bala krishnanand N M Ghatate for the appellants in CAs
2480 2482 2484 2509 2575 and 2576 of 1966
V Vendantachari and section Balakrishnan for the appellants in CAs
Nos 2543 2544 and 2546 of 1966
section Balakrishnan and N M Ghatate for the appellant in CA No 2545 of 1966
section V Gupte and K Jaram for the appellants in CA Nos 2547 to 2553 and 2559 of 1966
792 K Parasaran K R Chaudhuri and K Rajendra Chaudhuri for the appellants in CAs
2602 of 1966 214 to 217 and 1055 of 1967
M section K Sastri section Gopalan and M section Narasimhan for the appellants in CAs
672 to 674 of 1967
M section Narasimhan for the appellants in CAs
1053 and 1054 of 1967
A V V Nair for the appellants in CAs
Nos 1062 and 1063 of 1967
V Vedantachart A T M Sampath and E C Agarwala for the appellants in CAs
14517 and 1458 of 1967
P C Bhartari for the appellant in CA No 162 of 1968
K Jayaram for R Thiagarajan for the appellants in CAs
Nos 672 673 and 1000 of 1968 and 2483 of 1966
section Mahan Kumaramangalam and A V Rangarm for the respondent State of Madras in all the appeals
R Kunchitapadam Vineet Kumar and K Jayaram for respondent No 2 in CA No 2484 of 1966
M K Ramamurthy J Ramamurthy and Vineet Kumar for respondent No 2 in CAs
2488 to 2490 of 1966
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J
In this batch of appeals the validity of the Mad ras Inam Estates Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari Act 1963 Madras Act 26 of 1963 the Madras Lease Holds Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1963 Madras Act 27 of 19 63 and the Madras Minor Inams Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari Act 1963 Madras Act 30 of 1963 is challenged on the ground that the material provisions in those Acts are violative of articles 14 191f and 31 of the Constitution
The provisions in these Acts reducing the tenants liability to pay the arrears of rent are also challenged on the ground that the legislature had no competence to enact those provisions
A few other minor contentions are also raised in these appeals to which reference will be made in the course of the judgment
All these contentions had been unsuccessfully urged before the High Court
Dealing with the allegation of infringement of articles 14 19 and 31 the High Court in addition to holding that there has been no infringement of those Articles has further held that the challenge to the validity of these Acts on the basis of those 793 articles is precluded in view of article 31 A
Dealing with the contention relating to the reduction of rent the High Court came to the conclusion that the legislature had power to enact the impugned provisions
The High Court also has given reasons for rejecting the other contentions advanced before it
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court these appeals have been brought by special leave
The impugned statues deal with agrarian reforms
They purport to deal with Inam lands
It is profitless to go to the origin of Inams or about their early history
Suffice it to say that the Urdu word Inam means a gift
The Inams rants were made by the Rulers for various purposes
Some of them were granted to institutions and some to individuals
Broadly speaking there were three types of Inams The first type consisted of the grant of the melwaram right alone
The second category consisted of the grant of both the melwaram as well as the kudivaram right
In addition to these two Inams there were what are known as Minor Inams
Sometime prior to 1862 the Government took up the question of enfranchising the Inams
The Inams Commissioner went into the rights of various persons claiming to be Inamdars
Thereafter the Madras Enfranchised Inams Act 
1862 Madras Act 47 of 1862 was passed for declaring and confirming the title of the Inamdars
Section 2 of that Act provided that the title deeds issued by the Inams Commissioner or an authenticated extracted from the register of the Commissioner or Collector shall be deemed sufficient proof of the enfranchisement of land previously hold on Inam tenure
By Madras Inams Assessment Act 1956 Madras Act 40 of 1 95 6 full assessment was levied on all Inam lands except Warm inams granted on service tenure without affecting in any way the rights as between the Inamdar and other persons if any in possession or enjoyment of the Inam land
Where the Inam comprised the entire villa e the same was treated as an estate in the Madras Proprietary Estates  Village Service Act 1894 Madras Act 2 of 1894 and the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act 1895 Madras Act 3 of 1895 as well as in Madras Estate Land Act 1908 Madras Act 1 of 1908
Mdras Estates Land Act 1908 recognised the ryots  permanent tenure
That Act secured a permanent right of occupancy to every ryot who at the commencement was in possession of ryoti I and or who was subsequently admitted to the possession of such land
Then came the Madras Estate Land Third Amendment Act 1936 Madras Act 18 of 1936
That Act amplified the definition of the estate in the Madras Estate Land Act 1908 so as to bring within its scope A Inam villages of 794 which the grant was made confirmed or recognised by the Government
It also provided that when a question arises whether any land was the land holder s private land or not the land should be presumed not to be Inamdar s private land until the contrary was proved
In 1937 the Madras Government appointed the Prakasam Committee to enquire into and report the conditions which prevailed in the Zamindari and other proprietary areas in the State
That committee submitted its report together with a draft bill on the lines of its recommendations but no action was taken on that report as the Congress Ministry which appointed it resigned
Then we come to the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari Act 1948 Madras Act 26 of 1948
This Act applies to all estates ie Zamindari and under tenure estates and all Inam villages in which the grant consisted of melwaram alone
That Act as its preamble says is an Act to provide for the repeal of the permanent settlement the acquisition of the rights of landholders in permanently settled and certain other estates in the Province of Madras and the introduction of the ryotwari settlement in such estates
To complete the agrarian reform initiated by this Act the impugned Acts appears to have been enacted
The Preamble to Madras Act 26 of 1963 says that it is an Act to provide for the acquisition of all rights of landholders in Inam estates in the State of Madras and the introduction of the ryotwari settlement in such estates
That Act follows by and large the provisions in Act 26 of 1948
In Act 26 of 1963 Inams estates are divided into two categories namely 1 existing Inam estate and 2 a new Inam estate
The existing Inam estate refers to the estate consisting of the whole village and the new Inam estate means a part village Inam estate of Pudukkottai Inam estate
The New Inam estate was not an estate known to law earlier
It is merely a name given to part village Inam estate a Pudukkottai Inam estate for drafting convenience
Act 27 of 1963 is an Act to provide for the termination of the leases of certain lease holds granted by the Government the acquisition of the rights of the lessees in such lease holds and the introduction of the ryotwari settlement in such leaseholds
Act 30 of 1963 is an Act to provide for the acquisition of the rights of the Inamdars in minor Inams and the introduction of the ryotwari settlement in such Inams
We do not think it necessary to go into the contention that one or more provisions of the impugned Acts are violative of articles 14 19 and 31 as in our
opinion these Acts are completely protected by article 31 A of the Constitution which says that Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13 no law providing for 7 95 a the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights  shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14 article 1 9 or article 3 1
 The expression estate is defined in sub article
2 of Art31 A
That definition includes not merely Inams but also land held under ryotwari settlement as well as land held or let for the purpose of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto including waste land forest land land for pastures or site or buildings and other structures occupied by the cultivators of land agricultures and village artisans
The impugned Acts are laws providing for the acquisition by the State of an estate as contemplated  by article 31 A
They seek to abolish all intermediate holders and to establish direct relationship between the Government and the occupants of the concerned lands
These legislations were undertaken as a part of agrarian reforms
Hence the provisions relating to acquisition or the extinguishment of the rights of the intermediate holders fall within the protective wings of article 31 A see B Sankara Roo Badami and ors
vs State of Mysore and anr
It is next contended on behalf of the appellants that the lands on which full assessment was levied under Act 40 of 1956 ceased to be inams and therefore provisions of the Madras Act 26 of 1963 cannot be applied to the same
We have not thought it necessary to go into the question whether as a result of Madras Act 40 of 1956 certain Inams have ceased to be Inams as in our opinion whether they continued to be Inams or not they are still estate within the meaning of article 31 A because they fall either under sub clauses 1 or II or 111 of Clause a of article 31 A 2 and that being so the provisions of the impugned Acts cannot be challenged on the ground that they infringe articles 14 19 and 31
The contention that as the State purported to abolish Inams and not other intermediaries the law cannot be held to be valid if the intermediaries sought to be removed are not Inamdars is an untenable one
If the impugned legislation can be traced to a valid legislative power the fact that the legislature wrongly described some of the intermediaries sought to be removed does not make the law invalid
From the above observations it should not be understood that we have come to the conclusion that the intermediaries concerned were not Inamdars
We have not gone into that question
From the provisions of 1  796 The impugned Acts it is quite clear that the intention of the legislature was to abolish all intermediaries including the owners of those estates that were subjected to full assessment by Act 40 of 1956
It was next urged that article 31A does not protect a legis lation where no compensation whatsoever has been provided for taking the estates
We do not think we need go into that question
This contention bears only on the provisions of the Madras Act 26 of 1963
Section 18 of that Act provides that compensation shall be determined for each Inam as a whole and not separately for each of the interests in the Inams
The validity of this section was not challenged before us
All that was urged was that for some of the pro reties included in the Inam no compensation was provided
Even if we assume this contention to be correct it cannot be as that no compensation was provided for the acquisition of the lnam as a whole
Hence article 31A bars the plea that there was contravention of article 312 in making the acquisition in question
One of the contentions taken on behalf of the appellants that the impugned Acts to the extent they purport to acquire mining lands are outside the purview of article 31 A
It is not known whether the lands in which mining operations are going on were let or held as estates
There is also no evidence to show that the owners of those lands were entitled to the mines
Hence it is not possible to uphold the contention that lands concerned in some of the appeals have been acquired without paying compensation
In order to avoid the bar of article 3 1 A a curious plea was put forward
It was urged that when the concerned bills were submitted to the President for his assent as required by the first proviso to article 31 A the President was not made aware of the implications of the bills
This contention is a wholly untenable one
There is no material before us from which we could conclude that the President or his advisers were unaware of the implications of those bills
We must proceed on the basis that the President had given his assent to those bills after duly considering the implication of the provisions contained therein
it was next urged that the provisions in the impugned Acts reducing the liability of the tenants in the matter of payment of the arrears of rent whether decreed or not was beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature
This contention is agairt untenable
Those attears are either affairs of rent or debts due from agriculturists
It they are treated as affears of rent then the State legislature had legislative power to legislate in respect of the same under Entry 18 of List II of the VIIth Schedule
If they are considered as debts due from agriculturists then the 797 State legislature had competence to legislate in respect of the same under Entry 30 of the same list
In regard to the Inams belonging to the religious and chari table institutions the impugned Acts do not provide for payment of compensation in a lumpsum but on the other hand provision is made to pay them a portion of the compensation every year as Tasdik
This is only a mode of payment of the compensation
That mode was evidently adopted in the interest of the concerned institutions
We are unable to agree that the method is violative of article 312
At any rate that provision is protected by article 31 A It was next urged that by acquiring the properties belonging to religious denominations the legislature violated article 26 c and d which provide that religious denominations shall have the right to own and acquire movable and immovable property and administer such property in accordance with law
These provisions do not take away the right of the State to acquire property belonging to religious deuomintions
Those denominations can own acquire properties and administer them in accordance with law
That does not mean that the property owned by them cannot be acquired
As a result of acquisition they cease to own that property
Thereafter their right to administer that property ceases because it is no longer their property
article 26 does not interfere with the  right of the State to acquire property
Mr section V Gupte appearing for some of the appellants urged that the Impugned Act contravenes the second proviso to article 31A
From the material before us it is not possible to hold that any property under the personal cultivation of any of the appellants had been acquired
Further there is no material to show what the ceiling is
Hence it is not possible for us to examine the correctness of that contention
If in any particular case the second proviso to article 31 A has been breached then to that extent the acquisition will become invalid
It was urged by Mr Sastri appearing for some of the appel lants that the impugned Acts do not acquire the lands concerned in some of the appeals
This contention was not gone into by the High Court
Dealing with that contention the High Court in its judgment observed  But the applicability of the impugned Acts to the Inams in question cannot be conveniently investigated in the present writ proceedings
The question will have to be determined with reference to the terms of the 798 grant the extent of the grant has to be ascertained by reference to the relevant materials
Section 5 of Madras Act XXXI of 1963 XXX of 1963  makes special provision for determination of the question whether any non ryotwari area is or is not an existing Inam Estate or  part village Inam Estate  or a minor Inam or whole Inam village in Pudukkottai
It is stated at the bar that in most of the cases now before us the parties have applied under the provisions of the said Act for determination of the character of the Inams respectively held by them
It is needless to point out that the Tribunal constituted under the Act will be entitled to decide that a particular property is neither an existing Inam estate  nor a part village Inam estate nor a whole inam village in Puddukkottai and completely out of the coverage of Acts XXVI and XXX of 1963
We a1so make it clear that the disposal of these writ petitions now does not preclude the Inamdars from agitating The question that a particular property is not an Inam at all and does not under any of the aforesaid four categories or falls under one or other of the categories as may be urged for the inamdars
 We agree with the High Court that the contention in question can be more appropriately gone into in the manner suggested by the High Court
In the result these appeals fail and they are dismissed
But under the circumstances we make no order as to costs in these appeals


Summary:
In the State of Madras there were three types of inams namely 1those which constituted of the grant of melwaram alone 2 thosewhichconsisted of the grant of both melwaram and kudivaram and 3 minor inams
By Madras Inams Assessment Act 1956 full assessment was levied on all inam lands except melwaram inams granted on service tenure without affecting in any way the rights between the inamdars and the persons in possession or enjoyment of the land
To complete the agrarian reform initiated by the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1948 the he Madras Inam Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1963 the Madras Leaseholds Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1963 and the Madras Minor Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1963 were enacted
Under the first acquisition of all rights of landholders in inam estates and the introduction of ryotwari settlement in such estates was provided for
Section 18 of the Act provides that compensation shall be determind for each inam as a whole
The second Act provides for the termination of the leases of certain leaseholds granted by the Government the acquisition of the rights of the lessees in such leaseholds and the introduction of ryotwari settlement and the third Act provides for the acquisition of the rights of inamdars in minor inams and the introduction of the ryotwari settlement
The Acts contain provisions reducing the liability of the tenants in the matter of payment of arrears of rent
On the question of the validity of the Acts HELD  1 The impugned Acts could not be challenged as violative of Arts 14 19 and 3 1
They deal with estates  as defined in article 31A of the Constitution and provide for their acquisition by the State  They seek to abolish all intermediate holders and to establish direct relationship between the Government and the occupants of the concerned lands
They were undertaken as a part of agrarian reform and hence the provisions relating to acquisition or extinguishment of the rights of the intermediate holders fall within the protective wings of article 3 IA
795 D E B Shankara Rao Badami  Ors
vs State of Mysore  Anr
   followed
2 Assuming that as a result of the levy of full assessment under the 1956 Act the lands cease to be inams and the intermediaries ceased to be inamdars the lands are still estate  within the meaning of article 31A because they fall under one of the sub cls
1 II or III of article 79 1 3 IA2 a
If the impugned legislation can be traced to a valid legislative power the fact that the Legislature wrongly described some of the intermediaries sought to be removed does not make the law invalid
795 E H 3 In the Absence of any material to the contrary the court must proceed on the basis that the President had given his assent to the bills after duly considering the implication of the provisions contained therein
796 E G 4 If the arrears of rent are treated as rent then the State Legislature has power to legislate with respect to the liability of tenants to pay the arrears under Entry 18 of List 11 VII Schedule
If they are considered as debts due from agriculturists then the State Legislature has competence to legislate under Entry 30 of the same list
796 G H 797 A 5 In the case of the first of the impugned Acts assuming that for some of the properties included in the inam no compensation was provided article 31A bars the plet that there was contravention of article 312796 C D 6In regard to the inams belonging to the religious and charitable institutions the impugned Acts do not provide for payment of compensation in a lumpsum but provision is made to pay a portion of the compensation every year as tasdik
The method adopted is not violative of Art 312 and is at any rate protected by Art 31A 7917 A C 7 Article 26c and d of the Constitution provide that religious denominations shall have the right to own and acquire properties and administer them according to law
But that does not mean that the properties owned by them cannot be acquired by the State
797 C E 8It is open to the inamdars to agitate before the
Tribunal constituted under the last Act that a particular property is not an inam at all and that the Acts do not apply to them
798 D E