Case: Sri Navneetheswaraswami Devasthanam Vs. State of Madras

1. The appellant, Sri Navneetheswaraswami Devasthanam in Tanjore District, Tamil Nadu is a religious trust of a public nature. It filed a writ petition praying for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification made by the State of Madras in G. O. Ms.65 published in the Gazette datednotifying that the village of Sellur belonging to the appellant came under the provisions of the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act 26 of 1963). The writ petition was originally heard along with a batch of other writ petitions raising similar question. But during the course of the argument of the petitions, as a special contention was sought to be raised by the appellant, the writ petition was separated from the batch and disposed of separately. The special contention raised by the appellant in a supplementary affidavit was that the appellant was in personal cultivation of the lands in question and as Act 26 of 1963 made no provision for compensation in accordance with the second proviso to Article(1), the notification was bad for that reason alone. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and this appeal, by certificate, is against that order.

Reasoning:
7. It would follow that the provision of that Act fixing the ceiling on ownership of land was not applicable to the appellant. It was only if the ceiling provision of that Act was applicable to the appellant that the second proviso to Article(1) would be attracted. So, even if the appellant was in personal cultivation of the land, the second proviso to Article(1) can have noare unable to agree. The proviso is clear that unless the law fixing the ceiling limit on the ownership of land is applicable to the appellant, the appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of the proviso.9. We think the High Court was right in its conclusion