t Petition No 869 of 1988
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Govind Mukhoty Naresh Kaushik and Ms Lalitha Kaushik for the Petitioner
VC Mahajan Girish Chandra and Ms A Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner Union or Behalf of the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra for a declaration the Girh Kalayan Kendra wherein the Workers are employed is State  within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India and the respondents to pay regular pay scales in parity with other employees performing similar work under the Union of India like New Delhi Municipal Committee and other Departments of Delhi Administration
Grih Kalyan Kendra is a Society registered under the 
Its objectives as set out in the memorandum of Association are as follows a To promote social economic cultural and educational activities for the betterment of the Central Government employees and their families b To impart technical and vocational training in home crafts and other house hold arts for useful utilisation of leisure time and c To organise and promote economic activities that may provide opportunities for gainful employment to families Central Government employees for supplementing family incomes
 18 For attaining the aforesaid objectives the Kendra has been conducting various activities including i holding of craft classes for training in cutting tailoring and embroidering for the house wives and grown up girls during their leisure hours ii imparting nursery education for children in the age group of 3 to 7 years iii running of creches or day care centres for children between the age of 90 days and 7 years iv providing the recreational facilities like TV shows librariesgymnasia and in door games and sports at the samaj sadans Community Halls v conducting stitching of liveries for Class III Group C and Class IV Group D employees of Government Departments and Public Sector Undertakings
The Kendra runs 29 nursery centres out of which 21 are in Delhi 3 in Dehradun and one each at Faridabad Nagpur Jaipur Bombay and Madras
It also runs 43 crafts centres out of which 23 are in Delhi 5 in Bombay 8 in madras 2 in Dehradun and one each at Jaipur Nagpur Faridabad Narela and Bahadurgarh
The Kendra also runs 19 centres for day care called creches out of which 16 are in Delhi and one each at Faridabad Madras and Jaipur
The Kendra conducts two production centres one located at Delhi and the other at madras
In these centres stitching of liveries for class III and Class IV employees of Government Departments and Public Sector Undertakings are undertaken with a view to provide gainful employment for dependent ladies members of the Government servants
The Grih Kalyan Kendra is a welfare organisation working under the aegis of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Ministry of Home Affairs
The purpose and object of establishing the Kendras were to help needy Government servants especially those belonging to the lower income group by providing to their dependents opportunity of gainful work or training during their leisure time
The scheme stipulated to ensure that the dependents of such Government servants should be able to supplement to meagre income of the family and to acquire skill and experience for obtaining employment elsewhere
Initially the employees of Kendra were paid honorarium only and at no time they had any regular scales of pay
Some of the employees who work at the Centres are paid on piece rate basis
The control and management of the Kendras vest in a board which consist of officers of the Department of Personnel
The Union of India supplements the income of the Kendras by providing grants and monetary support
The employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra fall in two broad categories i regular staff taken on deputation from other Central Government offices who draw their salaries in regular scale of pay alongwith the deputation and other allowances as admissi 19 ble to the Central Government employees ii employees employed at the various centres of the kendra on ad hoc basis some of whom have been working on fixed salary called honorarium while others are working on the piece rate wages at the production centres without there being any provision for any scale of pay and other benefits likegratuity pension provident fund etc
The terms and conditions of tenure of service have not been regulated by any Rules framed by the Kendra
The services of the employees falling in the second category are terminable at any time at the sweet will of the officers of the Kendras
The petitioner has asserted that the employees of the Kendra are paid low wages and their salaries are far less than what is paid to the employees doing similar nature of work in the organisations like NDMC and other Departments of the Delhi Administration
It is asserted that the Kendra is a State  within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore the respondents are under constitutional obligation to prescribe similar scales of pay as applicable to the employees of NDMC and Delhi Administration and who are doing the same work as performed by the employees of the Kendra
The petitioner has claimed relief for declaring the kendra to be an instrumentality of State and for the issue of a direction directing the respondents to pay equal pay as paid to the similar employees doing similar work in NDMC and other Departments of Delhi Administration along with other benefits like gratuity pension and provided fund
The petitioner s claim for equal pay as paid to the employees of NDMC and Delhi Administration is contested by the respondents
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondentsit is asserted that the Grih Kalyan Kendra was started as a welfare society with the aim of helping the needy Government servants especially those belonging to lower income group by providing to their dependents opportunity of gainful work so that they might be able to supplement the meagre income of their family and at the same time they may also gain skill and experience in order to improve their career elsewhere
Grih Kalyan Kendra was expected to be a stepping stone for such dependents of the poor Government servants and there was no intention to provide them with any regular employment
it is further stated that in the nature of things and in consonance with original aim the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra were expected to leave the organisation once they have acquired skill and experience and seek other opportunity of employment for the betterment of their career elsewhere
The employees of the Kendra were expected to leave the organisation once they lost the status of dependent of low paid 20 Government employees
However the employees of the Kendra have not met any of these expectations
Some of the employees once inducted into the organisation have continued for a number of years
The employees working in the Kendra are not regular employees and the duties performed by them are not comparable to any of the employees working under NDMC or any Department of Delhi Administration or under the Union of India
The status of the kendra is a unique one where the work and duties performed by its employees are quite different in nature than those performed by the employees of NDMC and Delhi Administration
Shri Govind Mukhoty learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the Grih Kalyan Kendras are managed by the Board as contemplated by the Rules of the Registered Societies the Union of India have the pervasive control over its functions it is an instrumentality and agency of the Union Government and therefore it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
He placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs International Airport Authority of India  Ors   P K Ramachandra Lyer  Ors
vs Union Of India  Ors
   BS Minhas vs Indian Statistical Institute  Ors   Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad vs Union of India  Ors  and Surya Narain Yadav  Ors
vs Bihar State Electricity Board  Ors  WE do not think it necessary to consider this question in detail as in our opinion given on an assumption that the Grih Kalyan Kendra is an instrumentality of a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the petitioners are entitled to enforce their fundamental rights against it it is difficult to uphold this contention that the respondents have violated any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners
We accordingly proceed on the assumption that the Grih Kalyan kendra is a State for the purposes of Chapter IV of the Constitution and consequently this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable and the petitioners are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for the enforcement of their fundamental right founded on the principle of equal pay for equal work
Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as a fundamental right but in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy as contained in Article 39d of the Constitution Equal pay for equal work has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
Equal pay for equal 21 work and providing security for service by regularising causal employment within a reasonable period has been accepted by this Court as a constitutional goal to our socialistic pattern
It has ceased to be a judge made law as it is the part of the constitutional philosophy which ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing equal opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for similarly placed employees of the State
This Court has zealously enforced the fundamental right to equal pay for equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social justice in a number of decisions
See Randhir Singh vs Union of Ind   Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P  T Department vs Union of India  Dhirendra Chamoli V State of UP  Surinder Singh vs Engineer in Chief CPWD  RD Gupta vs Lt
Governor Delhi Administration  Bhagwan Dass vs State of Haryana 1987 4 SCC 634 Jaipal vs State of Haryana 1988 3 SCC 354 and Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association  Ors
vs State of Karnataka  Ors
  Therefore the principle of equal pay for equal work even in an establishment which is an instrumentality of a State is applicable to its full vigour
The question then arises whether the respondents have practised discrimination in denying the employees of the kendra pay which the Union of India has been paying to other similarly placed employees doing the same or similar work
This question is of primary importance which requires investigation of facts
Unless it is demonstrated that the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra are discriminated in matters relating to pay and other emoluments with the other similarly placed employees the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied
While considering this question it is not necessary to find out similarity by mathematical formula but there must be a reasonable similarity in the nature of work performance of duties the qualification and the quality of work performed by them
It is permissible to have classification in services based on hierarchy of posts pay scale value of work and responsibility and experience
The classification must however have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved
In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers vs Union of India  Sabyasachi Mukharji J as he then was observed There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility
Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference
One cannot deny that 22 often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service
So long as such value judgment is made bona fide reasonable or an intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation such differentiation will not amount to discrimination
It is important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work if a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution
But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a negation of that right
 Elaborating the aforesaid observation the learned Judge further observed thus The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work some more sensitive some requiring more tact some less it varies from nature and culture of employment
The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula
If it has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in fact
 The petitioners have referred to the scale of pay paid to the similar employees of NDMC and Delhi Development Authority under the Delhi Administration for the various employees to demonstrate that the employees of the Kendra are being discriminated as they are paid lower amount of salary although they perform the same duties and functions as performed by corresponding employees holding corresponding posts under the NDMC and Delhi Administration
The chart as set out in the petition is as under _________________________________________________________________ section No Designation GKK Salaries per month NDMC DDACGovt
____________________________________________________________________ 1
Incharge Creche 788 1139 1380 2
Creche Attendants 758 1139 1139 3
Creche Ayahs 592 792 792 4
Craft Teachers 786 1260 1444 5
Nursery Teachers 712 1260 1260 6
Nursery Ayahs 430 792 792 7
Office Incharge of Crech Centre etc 1140 8
Office AssttTypist 880 1140 9
i Cutters Tailors 1140 ii Stitchers Checker870 1140 iii Drivers 565 1140 iv Peons 1140 v Chowkidars 750 792 10
Sweepers 225 In 1984 the employees filed Writ Petition No 13924 of 1984 in this Court claiming relief for the payment of wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work seeking parity with the employees of NDMC and other Departments of Delhi Administration and Union of India
Since the matter involved investigations of facts this Court with a view to find out as to which other employees similarly situated were paid more than the employees working in the Kendra and also to ascertain whether the principle of equal pay for equal work was being violated by the kendra on the suggestion of the parties referred the matter to Former Chief Justice Shri YV Chandrachud for his report and recommendation
The Court requested the Former Chief Justice make recommendations taking into account the following matters 1
Whether other similarly situated employees engaged in similar comparable work putting in comparable hours of work in a comparable employment are paid higher pay and if so what should be the entitlement of the complaining employees in order not to violate the equal pay for equal work principle 2
If there is no other comparable employment whether the remuneration of the complaining employees deserves 24 to be revised on the ground that their remuneration is unconscionable or unfair and if so to what extent
The organisation is not disabled form continuing its benign motivity and even extending it
 Pursuant to the directions of the Court the parties including the petitioners appeared before the Former Chief Justice
After hearing the parties and considering the entire material placed before him the Former Chief Justice submitted and elaborate report to the Court making comprehensive suggestions
The respondents to the writ petition agreed to implement the recommendations made by the Former Chief Justice
Thereupon the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 6 th May 1988 stating that the employees of the Kendra are entitled to the benefits recommended in the Report of the Former Chief Justice
In order to appreciate the controversy we consider it necessary to refer to the concluding part of the Report which contains the recommendations it is as follows Having given a careful thought to these unusual considerations I am of the opinion that until such time as the Government formulates a new scheme for giving an orderly shape to the Kendra so that by the application of a rational policy the remuneration of the Kendra employees could be fixed on a fair basis an ad hoc method of stepping up their meagre honorarium should be adopted linked to the length of service put in by the employees
No other test seems feasible since especially the Kendra employees are not prohibited from taking any other employment they are not recruited through an open competition there is no age bar for their recruitment or retirement and since being dependents of Government servants they are eligible in that capacity for receiving other benefits like free medical aid and leave travel concessions
In view of these circumstances to place the Kendra employees on par with other employees would be treating unequals as equals which would conceivably draw a constitutional challenge
For the foregoing reasons I recommend that the employees of the Kendra belonging to category b described earlier in this Report should be paid a fixed monthly honorarium according to the following scale 25 1
Employees who have put in a service of 20 years of more should be paid 100 one hundred per cent  more of the honorarium which is paid to them at present
Employees who have put in a service of 15 to 20 years should be paid 90 ninety per cent more of the honorarium which is paid to them at present
Employees who have put in a service of 10 to 15 years should be paid 80 eighty per cent more of the honorarium which is paid to them at present
Employees who have put in a service of 5 to 10 years should be paid 70 seventy per cent more of the honorarium which is paid to them at present
Employees who have put in a service of 1 to 5 years should be paid 60 sixty per cent more of the honoratium which is paid to them at present
These recommendation should operate retrospectively with effect from 1st August 1986 being the date on which the Supreme Court passed its order referring the matter to me
The delay in making these recommendations is not due to any default on the part of the employees
The employees of the Kendra of the b category should be paid arrears of honorarium upon the revised basis before 31st October 1987
 The Court accepted the Report of the Former Chief Justice and disposed of the petition on a statement made on behalf of the respondents that they would implement the recommendations made in the Report of the Former Chief Justice
There is no dispute that the recommendations made by the Former Chief Justice have been implemented and the employees of the Kendra are being paid remuneration accordingly
The Former Chief Justice s recommendation for ad hoc method of stepping up of honorarium until such time as the Government formulates a new scheme for giving orderly shape of the Kendra has been accepted by the respondents and a Sub Committee has been set up by the Grih Kalyan Kendra Board to review the organisational and operational arrangements in the Kendra at the headquarters and in the cities and to suggest measures for the improvement of its functioning
The Committee has been directed 26 with reference to the original objectives of Kendra of imparting skills to a steady stream of dependents of Government employees and to make suggestions for making further improvements
The Committee has not yet submitted its report
We hope and trust that the Committee will submit its report and the Girh Kalyan Kendra will take steps to improve the functioning of the Kendras including the remuneration of its employees
In the instant writ petition the petitioners have raised precisely the same question as raised in the earlier Writ Petition 13924 of 1984
Their grievance of discrimination in matters relating to payment of scale of pay and other emoluments was examined in the earlier writ petition and the Former Chief Justice held that there was no employment comparable to the employment held under the Grih Kalyan Kendra and therefore they could not seek parity with other employees working under NDMC or the Delhi Administration or Union of India
We consider it necessary to refer to the relevant part of the Report of the Former Chief Justice which is as under The first consideration which I am required by the Supreme Court to take into account is whether other similarly situated employees engaged in similar comparable work putting in comparable hours of work in a comparable employment are paid a higher pay and as to what should be the entitlement of the complaining employees in order not to violate the equal pay for equal work principle
 The facts and the statistical data set out above will show that the employment in the Kendra is unique in character that is to say it is not comparable with any other employment
Its motivation and genesis coupled with the absence of rules governing service conditions elude even a broad comparison between the employees of the Kendra and the employees of other organisations holding somewhat similar post that is posts bearing similar duties and designation
It is difficult to conceive of any other service which one can enter at any age regardless of educational qualifications and from which one can retire when one chooses
It is something like come if you like go when you please
Since there is no other employment which can bear a reasonable comparison with employment in the service of the Kendra it is difficult to perceive employees similarly situated as those in the service of the Kendra
27 Therefore the fact that those other employees may be drawing higher pay will not justify the conclusion that the employees of the Kendra of Categoryb with whom alone we are concerned are denied the benefit of the principle Equal pay for equal work
It is trite that the concept of equality implies and requires equal treatment for those who are situated equally
One cannot draw comparisons between unequals
If the facts of a given case fail to establish that persons who are aggrieved are not situated equally with others the benefits available to those others cannot ipso facto be given to the former though of course the question as to whether persons are situated equally has to be determined by the application of broad and reasonable tests and not by the application of a mathematical formula of exactitude
Try howsoever as one may be applying broad and reasonable criteria the conclusion is inescapable that there are no other employment comparable to the employment in the b category of the Kendra that means that the aggrieved employees are not situated similarly as any others
This then in my answer to the first question referred by the Supreme Court for my consideration
Putting it briefly there being no other Government or semi Government employees who can be regarded even broadly as being situated similarly as the employees of the Kendra with whom we are concerned the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be said to be violated by the payment of mere honorarium to these employees
 The above findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice are findings of facts founded on the material placed before him by the parties
These findings were accepted by this Court and the Writ petition was accordingly disposed of by an order dated 6th May 1988
Now it is not open to the petitioner to reopen the same question by means of the present writ petition
In the Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner an attempt was made to dispute the findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice but in fairness Shri Govind Mukhoty made a candid statement before us during the course of the arguments that the findings of the Former Chief Justice are not disputed
The findings recorded by the Former Chief Justice clearly show that there has been no discrimination as the petitioners are not being discriminated from those who are situated equally
The petitioners  claim 28 for the benefit of equal pay for equal work therefore must fail
Since the petitioner s claim for parity in pay with regard to the employees working in the New Delhi Municipal Committee and other Departments of the Delhi Administration and Union of India has failed their claim for the issue of direction to the respondents to provide for the pension gratuity and provident fund for the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra must also fail
In the result the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
YLal Petition dismissed


Summary:
The appellants are the tenants and the respondents are the landholders in respect of the tenanted agricultural lands of the hitherto inam estates
After the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1948
the inam estates were abolished the land stood vested in the Government free of all encumbrances and the pre existing rights title and interest of erstwhile landholders ceased except to claim ryotwari patta
The respondents landholders claimed that the lands in question were either under their personal cultivation or they intended to resume those for private cultivation and as such those were their private lands and they were enti tled to ryotwari pattas
The appellants tenants on the contrary claimed that those lands were neither under the personal cultivation of the landholders nor the landlords intended to resume those for personal cultivation but were in possession of the tenants who were entitled to ryotwari pattas after the abolition of the estates
The Settlement Officer after making inquiry under section 15 of the Estates Abolition Act held that the landholders failed to establish that they were personally cultivating the lands or that they intended to resume the lands for personal cultivation and as such rejected their claims
The landholders  appeals to the Estates Abolition Tribu nal were allowed
The Tribunal held that the landholders were entitled to the grant of ryotwari pattas as the lands were private lands within the meaning of section 3 10bi of the Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area Estates Land Act 1908 and that the tenants were not entitled to ryotwari pattas in respect of the same
394 The appellants tenants moved writ petitions before the High Court
The learned Single Judge observed that it was common ground before the Subordinate Tribunal as well as before him that the nature of the lands at the inception whether ryoti or private was not known that the burden of establishing that the lands were private lands was on the landholders and that it was also common ground before him that apart from the fact that there were occasional changes of tenants and the lands were sometimes leased under short term leases there were no other circumstances indi cating that the landholders intended to resume cultivation of the lands
The learned Single Judge held that after the pronouncement of this Court in Chidambaram Chettiar vs Santhanaramaswamy Odayar the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Periannan vs Amman Kovil AIR 1952 Mad 323 FB could no longer be considered good law and further that the decision in Jag deesam Pillai vs Kuppammal ILR and in Perish Priest of Narayar vs Thingaraja Swami Devasthanam App
176 178 and 493 of 1946 once more held the field
It was also observed that since in all the cases the only mode of proof attempted by the landholders was the grant of short term leases and change of tenants and rent it must be held that the lands were not established to be private lands and that no attempt was made to prove personal cultivation or any intention to resume personal cultivation
The Division Bench in writ appeals filed by the land holders held that in the first place the observations of this Court in Chidambaram s case were in accord with the rule in Periannan s case and secondly even if some of the dicta in the judgment of this Court in Chidambaram suggested a contrary principle the effect of the entire observations did not support the contention that Periannan s case had been impliedly overruled by this Court
Before this Court it was inter alia contended on behalf of the appellants tenants i that the learned Single Judge having found as fact that the landholders had failed to establish that the lands were their private lands as these were neither under their personal cultivation nor they were intended to be resumed for personal cultivation and applying the rule in Chidambaram s case the learned Single Judge having held that the lands were not private lands the Division Bench erred in holding to the contrary ii that the learned Single Judge correctly held that Perriannan s case was no longer good law as in Chidambaram Chettiar vs Santhanaramaswamy Odayar it was held that the definition of private land in section 310 of the Estate Land Act of 1908 read as a whole indicated clearly that the ordinary test for private land was the 395 test of retention by the landholder for his own personal use and cultivation by him or under his personal supervision though they might be let on short leases iii that it was not the intention or the scheme of the Act to treat as private those lands with reference to which the only pecul iarity was the fact that the landholder owned both the varams in the land and had been letting them out on short leases and iv that the Division Bench erred in holding that Periannan s tests were still applicable
On the other hand it was contended that the correct tests for determining what was private land had been laid down in Periannan s case which were not different from those of Chidambaram s case and the Division Bench correct ly applied those tests to find that the lands were private lands of the landholders
Allowing the appeals setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restoring that of the learned Single Judge this Court HELD 1 To find out whether a village was designated as inam village or not prima facie the revenue accounts of the Government which were there at the time of the Inam Abolition Act came into force had to be looked into
If it was so shown no further proof was necessary
Only when the entries in the revenue accounts were ambiguous and it was not possible to come to a definite conclusion it might be necessary to consider other relevant evidence which was admissible under the Evidence Act
406H 407A B 2 An interpretation of the words private land and ryoti land had to be made in consonance with the legisla tive purpose provisions and scheme of the enactment
Inter pretare at Concordare leges legibus est optimus interpre tundi modus
To interpret and in such a way as to harmonize laws with laws in the best mode of interpretation
410E 3 The Estate Abolition Act accepted the definitions of occupancy right and ryoti as in the Estates Land Act 1908
The above provisions conferred permanent heritable and transferable right of occupancy on the Tenant
This right stemmed from the will of the legislature and involved an element of social engineering through law star pro rationa voluntas populi the will of the people stands in place of reason
The right of the landholder to keep his private land to himself has therefore to be interpreted in its proper perspective
Statuta pro publico late interpretaur
Statute made for the public good ought to be liberally construed
425E F 396 4 The concept of past or present intention of the landholder to resume personal cultivation of land let out to a tenant and still in possession of the tenant has to be strictly construed against the landlord and liberally in favour of the tenant
425E The learned Single Judge in the instant case rightly observed that the legislature did not use the word domain or home farm land without attaching to them a meaning and it was reasonable to suppose that they would attach to those words the meaning which would be given to them in ordinary English namely to connote land appurtenant to the mansion of the lord of the manor kept by the lord for his personal use and cultivated under his personal supervision is dis tinct from land let to tenant to be farmed without any control from the lord of the manor other than such control as incident to the lease
To that extent the propositions of the learned Judges in Periannan s case can no longer be held to be good law in view of this Court s decisions in Chidambaram s case and Venkataswami s case and the decision in Zamindar of Challapali vs RajalapatiJagadesan Pillai vs Kuppamal and in Parish Priest of Karayar Perish vs Thiapa rajaswami Devasthanam mast be held to have been correctly decided
421C E Zamindar of Chellapalli vs Rajalapato Somayya 39 Mad 341 Jagadeesam Pillai vs Kuppamal ILR  Parish Priest of Karayar Parish vs Thiagarajaswami Devastha nam App
176 178  493 of 1946 Chidambaram Chettiar vs Santhanaramaswamy Odayar   Yerlagadda Malikarjuna Prasad Nayudu vs Somayya ILR PC P Venkataswami
DS Ramireddy  Suryanara yana vs Patanna  referred to
Periannan vs Amman Kovil AIR 1952 Mad
323 FB partly overruled
6 In the instant case the pattas and the muchilkas are not claimed to have shown anything to establish the lands to be private lands
Only the facts of occasional change of tenants and rents have been shown
431B