Appeals Nos
474 to 501 503 to 505 508 to 512 514 and 515 of 1959
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated November 28 1956 in O J C No 213 of 1955 and dated December 4 1956 of the Orissa High Court in O J C Nos
214 to 216 218 236 to 241 244 to 248 251 261 to 264 268 269 271 279 to 282 304 to 306 318 323 324 353 357 363 and 372 of 1955
A V Viswanatha Sastri and M section K Sastri for the appellants in C As
474 487 489 501 503 505 and 508 510 of 1959
M section K Sastri for the appellant  In C A No 4881959
G C Mathur for the appellants In C As
Nos 111 512 514 and 515 of 1959 C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India B R L Iyengar and PM Sen for the respondents
August 22
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J
These are 38 appeals against the judgment and orders of the High Court of Orissa dated November 28 1956 by which 42 petitions under article 226 of the Constitution filed by the present appellants and some others were dismissed
The High Court certified the cases as fit for appeal to this Court under article 1321 of the Constitution
The appellants are holders of pre settlement minor inams in the State of Orissa
Their grants art different both in regard to the time when they were made and the lands involved in them
They were made for performance of services of deities and were classed as Devadayam grants in the revenue papers
The grants in all these cases were not of whole villages but of certain lands and hence their classification as minor inams and they comprised both the melwaram and kudiwaram rights 252 in the lands
It is not necessary to refer to these cases separately since a single argument was addressed before us involving the consideration whether Notification No4971 XV 9154 EA dated July 15 1955 issued by the Orissa State Government and the Orissa Estates Abolition Act 1951 Act 1 of 1952 as amended by the Orissa Estate Abolition Amendment Act 1954 Act XXVII of 1954 were respectively beyond the competence of the State and the Orissa State Legislature
By the original Act all estates of the intermediaries were abolished and on a notification by the Government suchestates vested in Government
By the amending Act the definition of  estate was widened to cover even such minor inams and then the impugned notification was issued
The appellant contend that the original Act and the amending Act were jointly or severally beyond the competence of the State Legislature and that the notification above mentioned was void without any effect
The Bill resulting in the original Act was introduced on January 17 1950 and the Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly September 28 1951 It was reserved for the consideration of the president Who gave his assent on January 23 1952
In the Act before its amendment in 1954 estate was defined as follows 2g Estate  means any and held by an intermediary and included under one entry in any of the general registers of revenue paying lands and revenue free lands prepared and maintained under the law for the time being in force by the collector of district  and includes revenue free lands not entered in any register and all classes of tenures or under tenures or an inam estate or part of an estate By the amending act of 1954 this definition was substituted by another which read 253 2g Estate  includes apart of an estate and means any land held by or vested in an intermediary and included under one entry in any revenue roll or any of the general registers of revenue paying lands and revenue free lands prepared and maintained under the law relating to land revenue for the time be ing in force or under any rule order custom or usage having the force of law and includes revenue free lands not entered in any register or revenue roll and all classes of tenures or under tenures and any jagir inam or muafi or other similar grant
 In the original Act as well as in the Act as amended there was a general provision in s2q which may be read here  q All words and expressions used in this Act but not defined in it shall have with reference to any part of the State of Orissa the same meaning as defined in the tenancy laws and rules for the time being in force and in the absence of written laws and rules as recognised in the custom for the time being obtaining in that part of the State of Orissa
 In the original Act a provision was inserted by s3 of the amending Act to the following effect 3
For the purpose of removal of all doubts it is declared that such lands and such rights in relation thereto and such persons who hold such lands and such rights as were heretofore covered by the definitions of the words estate  and Intermediary  in the Orissa Estates Abolition Act 1951 shall not cease to be so covered merely on the ground that by virtue of the provisions of this Act the said definitions have been amended and widened in scope
 The meaning of the last provision is clear
It takes away nothing from the ambit of the old definition 254 but only adds thereto as indeed the new definition of estate introduced by the amending Act shows only too plainly in its terms
To complete the survey of the provisions which we way have to refer to in this judgment we first set down the definition of estate as given in the Madras Estates Land Act 1908 which was applied to Orissa
Section 32d of that Act defined  estate as Any inam village of which the grant has been made confirmed or recognised by the Government notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant the village has been partitioned amongst the grantees or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees
 The argument in this case is based upon this definition because in defining an estate  whole villages which were inam were contemplated and not minor inams of lands only
We shall refer to this later
The amending Act was also reserved for the consideration of the President and was assented to by him
When the Constitution was brought into force the Bill of the Original Act had already been introduced in the Assembly
On June 18 1951 before the Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly the Constitution First Amendment Act 1951 bad been enacted and article 31A inserted with retrospective operation in the Constitution
Article 31A provided 31A1 Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13 no law providing for 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 sbridges any of the rights 255 conferred by article 14 article 19 or article 31  Provided that where such law is a law made by the Legislature of a State the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law having been reserved for the consideration of the President has received his assent
2 In this article a the expression estate  shall in relation to any local area
 have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and shall also include any jagir inam or muafi or other similar grant 
Article 31 before it was amended by the constitution Fourth Amendment Act 1955 provided inter alia that no property shall be acquired for a public purpose unless the law provided for compensation and either fixed the compensation or specified the principles on which the compensation was to be determined and given
Cl2
By cl
3 it was provided that no law such as was referred to in cl
2 was to have effect unless such law having been reserved for the consideration of the President had received his assent
Clause 4 then provided  4 If any Bill pending at the commencement of this constitution in the Legislature of a State has after it has been passed by such Legislature been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent then notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the law so assented to shall not be called in question in any court on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of clause 2 The combined effect of these provisions of the Constitution was that there could be no compulsory acquisition of property for public purposes unless the law provided for payment of compensation 256 but the law could not be called in question on this ground if it had been reserved for the consideration of the President and had been assented to by him
The assent of the President was a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the law
By the amendment of the Constitution and the addition of article 31A no such law was to be deemed to be void on the ground that it was inconsistent with or took away or abridged any of the rights conferred by Art14 Art19 or Art31  provided that it had been reserved for the consideration of the President and had received his assent
By the definition clause article 31A2a the expression  estate was to have the same meaning in any local area which it or its equivalent had in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area but was to include among others any
inam 
The contention of the appellants is really twofold
The first argument is that the benefit of article 31A might have been available to the original Act
as it was a law for the compulsory acquisition of property for public purposes but not to the amending Act which was not such a law but only amended a previous law by enlarging the definition of estate
The second argument is that the word estate as
defined in s2g before its amendment did
not apply to pre settlement minor inams of lands as it applied only to an inam estate and an inam estate bad the meaning which the definition of estate had in the Madras Estates Land Act
 viz only whole inam villages
This it is urged follows from the provisions of s2q of the Estates Abolition Act quoted earlier
The first argument is clearly untenable
It assumes that the benefit of Art31A is only available to those laws which by themselves provide for compulsory acquisition of property for public purposes and not to laws amending such laws the assent of the President notwithstanding
This means that the whole of the law original and amending must be passed again and be reserved for the 257 consideration of the President and must be freshly assented to by him
This is against the legislative practice in this country
It is to be presumed that the President gave his assent to the amending Act in its relation to the Act it sought to amend and this is more so when by the amending law the provisions of the earlier law relating to compulsory acquisition of property for public purposes were sought to be extended to new kinds of properties
In assenting to such law the President assented to new categories of properties being brought within the operation of the existing law and he in effect assented to a law for the compulsory acquisition for public purposes of these new categories of property
The assent of the President to the amending Act thus brought in the protection of article 31A as a necessary consequence
The amending Act must be considered in relation to the old law which it sought to extend and the President asserted to such an extension or in other words to a law for the compulsory acquisition of property for public purposes
The argument that this was not an acquisition of an inam estate comprising a hole village and thus outside the Abolition Act
itself has no substance
No doubt these minor inams were not of whole villages but of lands and the grant included both the warms and there were thus no inter mediaries
But they were inams nevertheless and the Constitution defined and estate  an including any inam  and the amending Act merely followed that definition
The extended definition in the Constitution and a similar extended definition in the Act thus exclude resort to the general definition clause in s2q of the Abolition let and the definition of estate in the Madras Estates Land Act
The definition of estate introduced by the amending Act is sufficiently wide to cover such minor inams and section 2q only applies if a word or expression used in the Abolition Act is not defined therein
258 If the minor inams are already within the definition of the word estate there is no need to go to s2q or to any local law defining the word
There can be no doubt that if the new definition of estate applies to minor inams then they are affected by the Abolition Act
This indeed was conceded
Learned counsel for the appellants also urged through somewhat faintly that the ejusdem generis rule should be applied to the definition of estate in article 31A2a as also to the corresponding new definition in the Abolition Act
This argument proceeds upon an assumption for which there is no foundation
The ejusdem generis rule is applicable where as wide or general term has to be cut down with reference to the genus of the particular terms which precede the general words
This rule has hardly any application where certain specific categories are included  in the definition
The ejusdem generis rule may be applicable to the general
words other similar grant which would take their colour from the particular categories jagir inam or muafi which precede them but the word inam is not subject to the same rule
Once it is held that inams of any kind were included it makes little difference if the inams were of lands and not of whole villages
So also the fact that the holders of such inams cannot be described as intermediaries or that they comprised both the melwaram and the kudiwaram rights
Such a distinction would have significance if the law abolished only intermediaries and not inams which it did
Section 3 of the Abolition Act says 31 The State Government may from time to time by notification declare that the estate specified in the notification has passed to and become vested in the State free from all encumbrances
 If the definition of the word estate was wide enough to include a minor inam and a notification was issued the consequences of s3 of the Abolition 259 Act must follow
Such a law is not capable of being called in question on the ground that it abridges any fundamental right conferred by articles 14 19 and 31 if it has been assented to by the President
the notification was thus valid if the law was valid
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs one set only
Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The appellants were holders of pre settlement minor inams
The grants were not of whole villages but of certain lands and they comprised both the melwaram and kudiwaram rights in the lands
The definition of estate  in the Orissa Estates Abolition Act 1951 did not include a minor inam
But by the Orissa Estates Abolition Amendment Act 1954 the definition was enlarged to cover minor inams also
Both the Acts had received the assent of the President
The appe llants contended i that the Amendment Act of 1954 was not a law for the compulsory acquisition of property for a public purpose and was not saved by article 31 A of the Constitution and ii that the minor inams were outside the scope of the Abolition Act and could not be resumed
Held that the Amendment Act of 1954 was valid and was within the Protection of article 31A
In assenting to this Act the President assented to new categories of properties being brought within the operation of the abolition Act of 1951 and he in fact assented to the law for the compulsory acquisition for public purpose of these new categories of property
Though the minor inams were not of whole villages and included both the warams they were nevertheless inams and the Constitution defined an estate as including any inam and fell within the scope of Abolition Act of 1951 as amended in 1954
The ejusdem generis rule cannot be applied to Inam in the definition of estate in article 31A2a because particular categories like jagir in am or muafi are included in the definition expressly even though the rule may apply to other similar grants which expression may take its colour from the categories named
The ejusdem generis rule is applicable where a wide or general term has to be cut down with reference to the genus of the particular terms which precede the general words 251