http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: PEDDINTI VENKATA MURALIRANGANATHA DESIKA IYENGAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH& ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  966            1996 SCC  (3)  75  JT 1996 (1)   234        1996 SCALE  (1)298

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K. Ramaswamy, J.      The petitioners  are challenging  the constitutionality of Explanation  II to  Section 2(22)  and Section  76 of the Andhra Pradesh  Charitable and  Hindu Religious  Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 [30 of 1987] [for short, "the Act"] in this  writ petition,  apart from  other provisions of the Act  challenge  to  which  is  decided  in  other  connected matters. In  this case  we confine  our consideration to the validity of  the above  provisions. It  is contended  in the writ petition  and argued  by Shri R. Venugopal Reddy, their learned senior  counsel, that  ryotwari pattas  having  been granted  under   the  Andhra  Pradesh  (Andhra  Area)  Inams (Abolition and  Conversion into  Ryotwari) Act  [37 of 1956] [for short,  "the Inams  Abolition Act"] and the same having attained finality,  the legislature is devoid of power under the Act to set at naught the effect of the grant of ryotwari patta to  the archakas, service holders or employees covered under the  Act by  a  legislative  side-wind.  It  is  their case that  by grant  of ryotwari  patta  in  favour  of  the aforesaid  persons,  they  became  absolute  owners  of  the property.  The   legislature,  therefore,   is   devoid   of competence to  make the  law, employing non obstante clause, to take  away their vested rights without compensation. Shri P.P. Rao,  learned senior  counsel for  the State, contended that since  the legislature  abolished hereditary  rights of archakas, service  holders or other employees and introduced payment of  salary for them, the legislature is competent to enact Section  76 and  explanation II  to the  definition of ’endowment’  under  Section  2(22),  divesting  their  title and vesting  the same  in the  endowment or  institution  as the case may be.      Section   2(22)    of   the   Act   defines   religious endowment thus:      "2(22)  -   ’religious  endowments’

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

    means property  (including  movable      property), and  religious offerings      whether in  cash or  kind, given or      endowed  for   the  support   of  a      religious institution  or given  or      endowed for  the performance of any      service  or  charity  of  a  public      nature connected  therewith  or  of      any other  religious  charity;  and      includes the  institution concerned      and also the premises thereof.      Explanation II  :- Any Inam granted      to an  archaka, service  holder  or      other  employee   of  a   religious      institution for  the performance of      any   service    or   charity    in      connection   with    a    religious      institution shall  not be deemed to      be a  personal gift to the archaka,      service-holder     or     employee,      notwithstanding   the    grant   or      ryotwari  patta   to  all  archaka,      service holder  or  employee  under      the Andhra  Pradesh  (Andhra  Area)      Inams  (Abolition   and  Conversion      into Ryotwari)  Act, 1956 but shall      be  deemed   to  be   a   religious      endowment."      A reading  of the  section would  show  that  religious endowment  means   property   including   movable   property given  or   endowed  for   the  support   of   a   religious institution or  given or  endowed  for  the  performance  of any  service   or  charity  of  a  public  nature  connected therewith or  of any  religious  charity  and  includes  the institution  connected   and  also   the  premises  thereof, Any  inam   granted  to   an  archaka,  service  holders  or other  employees   of  a   religious  institution   for  the performance of  any service  or a charity in connection with the institution shall be deemed to be a personal gift to the archaka, service  holders or  employee, notwithstanding  the grant of  ryotwari patta to all archakas, service holders or employees under the Inams Abolition Act, but shall be deemed to be  a religious  endowment. Section  76 of  the Act reads thus:      "76.Prohibition  of   transfer   of      lands granted for rendering service      to  a   religious   or   charitable      institution or endowment:      (1)  Where,  before  or  after  the      commencement  of   this  Act,   any      person has  been granted a ryotwari      patta in  respect of  any inam land      given to  a service holder or other      employee   of   a   charitable   or      religious institution  or endowment      for  the   purpose   of   rendering      service  to   the  institution   or      endowment then,  notwithstanding to      the contrary  in any  other law for      the time  being in  force or in the      deed of  grant or  of  transfer  or      other  document  relating  to  such      land  it  shall  be  and  shall  be      deemed never  to have  been granted      and  the   lands  covered  by  such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    ryotwari   patta   shall   not   be      transferred  and  shall  be  deemed      never to  have been transferred and      accordingly no  right or  title  in      such land  shall vest in any person      acquiring the land by such transfer      and a  ryotwari patta in respect of      such land  shall be  deemed to have      been  granted   in  favour  of  the      institution or  endowment concerned      and  thereafter   the   person   in      possession of  such load  shall  be      deemed as  an  encroacher  and  the      provisions in  Sections 84  and  85      and shall apply.      (2) No  ryotwari  patta  holder  in      respect of the aforesaid land shall      transfer  any   such  land  and  no      person shall  acquire any such land      either by  purchase,  gift,  lease,      mortgage, exchange or otherwise.      (3)  Any  transfer  or  acquisition      made  in   contravention   of   the      provisions in   sub-Section  (1) or      sub-Section (2)  shall be deemed to      be null and void.      (4) The provisions of Section shall      apply to  any  transaction  of  the      nature referred  to in  sub-Section      (2) in  execution of  a  decree  or      order of a civil court or any order      or any other authority."      Section 76, as amplified by its marginal note indicates prohibition  of  transfer  of  land  granted  for  rendering service  to   a  religious   or  charitable  institution  or endowment. Sub-Section  (1) adumbrates that where, before or after the  commencement of  the  Act  any  person  has  been granted a  ryotwari patta  in respect of any inam land given to a  service holder  or  other  employee  of  a  charitable institution  or  endowment  for  the  purpose  of  rendering service to  the institution  or  endowment,  notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force  or in  the deed  of grant  or of transfer or other documents relating to such land and shall be deemed never to have been  granted and  the lands  covered by  such ryotwari patta shall  not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been  transferred. Accordingly,  no right  or title  in such land  shall vest  in any  person acquiring  the land by such transfer  and a  ryotwari patta in respect of such land shall be  deemed to  have been  granted  in  favour  of  the institution or  endowment concerned.  Thereafter, the person in possession  of such land shall be deemed as an encroacher and the provisions of Sections 84 and 85 of the Act shall apply. Equally, sub-Section (2) issues an injunction against the holder  of ryotwari  patta to  transfer such  land.  The purchaser or  a person  acquiring such land either purchase, gift, lease  mortgage, exchange  or  otherwise  acquires  no title such  land. Such a transfer was declared null and void by operation  of sub-Section (3). Even an order or decree of a civil court or any order of any other authority would also meet the same fate by operation of sub-Section (4) thereof.      The competency of the legislature to make this law, its deep impact on vested rights and its sweep would be properly gazed and appreciated when we would look into the provisions of the  Inams Abolition  Act which  is a  part  of  agrarian

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

reform forming  part of  the scheme to abolish an estate and conferment of  ryotwari patta  on the tiller of the soil and the  institution   respectively  and   creation  of   direct relationship of him with the State paying revenue assessment thereof. The  Inams Abolition Act was enacted under Entry 18 of List  II of  the Seventh  Schedule of  the  Constitution, viz., "Rights in or over the land, land tenure including the relationship of  the landlord  and the  tenant, transfer and alienation of  agricultural lands  etc." The preamble of the Inams Abolition Act envisages "an Act to abolish and convert certain inam  lands into  ryotwari lands".  The title of the Act  itself  indicates  abolition  of  the  inam  lands  and conversion thereof  into ryotwari  lands. The  Act had  come into force on December 14, 1956 and it has been amended from time to  time. Similar  provision is  available in Telangana area of Andhra Pradesh. Section 2(c) defines "Inam lands" to mean any land in respect of which the grant in inam has been made, confirmed or recognized by the government etc. Section 2(e) defines ’institution’ to mean a religious or charitable or an  educational institution.  Section  3  authorises  the Tehsildar either  suo motu or on an application to determine the nature  of the  lands, after  enquiring  (i)  whether  a particular land  in his  jurisdiction is  an inam land; (ii) whether such land is in ryotwari, zamindari or inam village; (iii) whether  such land  is held  by any  institution.  The procedure in  that behalf  has been provided in sub-sections (2) and  (3) of  Section  3  and  the  aggrieved  person  or institution has been given right of appeal under sub-section (4) against  the decision  of the  Tehsildar to  the Revenue Court within  prescribed limitation  therefore.  Under  sub- section (5)  the decision  of the  Revenue  Court  shall  be final. The  decision of  the Tehsildar  or Revenue  Court is required to  be published in the District Gazette under sub- section (6)  and also  in any  other prescribed  manner. The decision of  the Tehsildar  and the  Revenue Court  shall be binding, by operation of sub-section (7), on all persons and institutions  claiming   an  interest   in  any  such  lands notwithstanding that  such person  or  institution  has  not filed any application or a statement or adduced any evidence or appeared  or participated  in the  proceedings before the Tehsildar or  the Revenue  Court, as  the case may be. After publication,  under   sub-section  (6)  of  Section  3,  the Tehsildar has  been invested  with power  under Section 4 to convert  inam   land  into  ryotwari  land,  The  person  or institution or the tenant in occupation is declared entitled to ryotwari  patta in  respect of that land, The institution is entitled to 2/3 and the tenant or a person or the inamdar is entitled to l/3rd share of ryotwari patta. Therefore, the person, inamgar  or an  institution who  holds the  land  is entitled  to   2/3  and   1/3  share   of   ryotwari   patta respectively. It  has been  held by  the Andhra Pradesh High Court that  archakas in  possession of  land under  terms of compromise to  render service  cannot be regarded as inamdar and  cannot  obtain  patta  vide  Sri  Janardhanaswamy  Veru Temple,  Kopperapadu,   Ongole   Taluk,   Guntur   District, represented  by  its  Nanaging  Trustee  vs.  The  Assistant Collector, Guntur District & Anr. [(1964) 2 An. W.R. 139].      Section 5  empowers re-induction of tenants who were in occupation of  the inam  land in  inam villages  as  on  7th January, 1984  but were  evicted from  such land  before the commencement of the Inams Abolition Act and were entitled to ryotwari patta.  Section 6  deals with  the determination of 1/3 share  of inam  land in  the occupation  of the tenants, Section 7  deals with  the grant  of ryotwari  patta and has material bearing on the question under consideration.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

It reads thus:      7. Grant  of ryotwari patta :- (1).      As   soon    as   may    be   after      commencement  of   this   Act   and      subject to  the provisions  of sub-      Section (4),  the Tehsildar may suo      motu and   shall, on application by      a   person or an institution, after      serving a  notice in the prescribed      manner  on   all  the   persons  or      institutions  interested   in   the      grant of ryotwari pattas in respect      of the  inam  lands  concerned  and      after  giving   them  a  reasonable      opportunity  of   being  heard  and      examining all the relevant records,      determine    the     persons     or      institutions entitled  to  ryotwari      pattas  in   accordance  with   the      provisions of  Section 4  and grant      them   ryotwari    patta   in   the      prescribed form.      (2)  Any   person  or   institution      aggrieved  by   the  grant   of   a      ryotwari  patta  by  the  Tehsildar      under sub-Section (1) may appeal to      the Revenue Court within sixty days      from the  date of  such grant,  and      the Revenue Court may, after giving      the  parties   to  the   appeal   a      reasonable  opportunity   of  being      heard  pass   such  orders  on  the      appeal as it thinks fit.      (3) The  decision  of  the  Revenue      Court under  sub-Section  (2),  and      there  no   appeal  is  filed,  the      decision  of  the  Tehsildar  under      sub-Section (1), shall be final.      (4)   Where   the   Revenue   Court      declares under sub-Section (2) that      a   person    or   an   institution      different  from   the   person   or      institution to whom a Tehsildar has      granted a ryotwari patta under sub-      Section  (1)   is  entitled   to  a      ryotwari patta  the Tehsildar shall      cancel the  ryotwari patta  granted      by him  and grant  a fresh ryotwari      patta  in   accordance   with   the      decision of the Revenue Court under      sub-Section (2).      (5) In  the case of inam lands held      by  the   inamdar  other   than  an      institution in  an inam village, if      an application  is filed under sub-      Section (2) of Section 5 within the      period  specified   in   that   sub      Section, no tenant or inamdar shall      be granted  a ryotwari  patta under      sub-Section (1)  until the decision      of the  Revenue  Court  under  sub-      Section (3)  of Section 5 or of the      Collector under  sub-Section (5) of      that Section,  as the  case may be,      is given."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

    Section 8  gives right  of permanent  occupancy to  the tenant in inam land held by the institution in inam villages with the  words "said  right shall be heritable and shall be transferable by sale, gift or otherwise." Sub-Section (2) of Section 8  deals with  eviction  of  permanent  tenants  for failure to pay the rent and the procedure thereof. Section 9 deals with procedure for evicting the tenant having right of permanent occupancy  and re-grant  of lease  of lands  taken from tenant  under Section  9 is  governed  by  Section  10. Section 10A  deals with  application of the Act to inam land in ryotwari  or zamindari  villages. Section  10B deals with conferment of  ryotwari patta on transfers of unenfranchised inams. Section 11 makes the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956  or the  Act amended thereafter, applicable to the lands held  by the  permanent tenants under the Act. Section 12 prescribes  the procedure  and imposes liability on every person or institution receiving ryotwari patta to pay to the Government  ryotwari  assessment  in  the  manner  specified thereunder.  Section  14  bars  jurisdiction  of  the  civil court  over   the  matters  covered  as  enumerated  therein and Section  13 gives  power  of  the  civil  court  to  the Tehsildar, Revenue  Court and  the  Collector  as  indicated therein. Section  14A provides  a revisional jurisdiction to the  Board   of  Revenue  over  the  orders  passed  by  the Tehsildar, Revenue  Court or  the Collector, as the case may be. Sub-Section  (2) prohibits  exercise thereof  except  on compliance  with   the   principles   of   natural   justice adumbrating that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under  sub-Section (1)  unless such  person has  been given an  opportunity of  making his representation. Section 15 also  has a  bearing on the question in issue which reads thus:      "Act  to  override  other  laws  :-      Unless otherwise expressly provided      in this  Act the provisions of this      Act and  of any-  orders and  rules      made thereunder  shall have  effect      not      withstanding      anything      inconsistent therewith contained in      any other law for the time being in      force  or   any  instrument  having      effect by virtue of any such law."      Section 16  gives power  to the  Government  to  remove difficulties and Section 17 accords rule making power.      It would thus be clear that the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act  are  a  complete  code  in  itself  providing determination of the land whether held by the institution or the  individual  and  declaration  thereof,  entitlement  to ryotwari patta  by the  individuals or  institution who hold the land  and the  grant of  ryotwari patta  under Section 7 shall become  final unless the same is revised under Section 14A of the Act. The inam ceases to have effect from the date of grant of ryotwari patta. The conferment of ryotwari patta creates a  vested right  to the  property held either by the institution or  the individual  to the extent of 2/3 and 1/3 respectively with  absolute right, title and interest in the land. The tenant in occupation is also entitled to heritable occupancy rights with right to alienate, exchange, gift etc. Thereafter, the  pre-existing rights and liabilities of inam ceased.      In Boppudi Punniah & Ors. v. Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Varu &  Ors. [(1963) 2 A.W.R. 214], the applicability of the Act to  service inams  held by  office holders  enjoying the inams and  the right  to grant  of ryotwari patta had fallen for consideration.  The Division  Bench, after an exhaustive

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

review  of  the  Act,  held  that  service  inams  formed  a considerable proportion  of inams  in the Andhra area, be it in ryotwari  or zamindari  area. There  is no  justification for  attributing   ignorance  to   the  legislature  of  the existence of  this class  of  inams.  There  is,  therefore, no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  legislature  thought  of keeping out  of the  purview  of  the  Inams  Abolition  Act this class  of  inams,  especially  then  the  intendant  of the  Act   was  to  abolish  and  convert  inam  lands  into ryotwari  lands.   The  absence   of  a  provision  enabling the authorities  concerned to  insist  upon  performance  of service  could   not  lead,   to  the  conclusion  that  all service  inams   were  excluded  from  the  purview  of  the enactment.  Service   inams  also  must  be  held  as  inams governed by  this  enactment.  The  ryotwari  patta  should, therefore, be  held to  have  been  issued  to  the  service holders.      Another Division  Bench of  the High Court to which one of   us    (K.Ramaswamy,   J.)   was   a   member   in   Sri Bhavanaravanaswami Vari  Temple v.  Chintapudi Rudraiah [AIR (1986) 1  A.L.T. 444], after exhaustive consideration of the controversy, had  held that  a conjoint reading of Section 7 and Form  VIII and  Section 12  would posit that on and from the date  of the  grant of  the  ryotwari  patta,  the  inam extinguishes. The  grantee becomes  absolute  owner.  He  is liable only to pay ryotwari assessment to the Government. No condition has  been  fastened  therein  making  the  grantee render service to the respondents. There is presumptive evidence that  the legislature  is aware of the pre-existing law and  it intendant  to bring about alteration in the pre- existing liability by putting an end thereto and created new rights under  the Act.  The Act  intended to  extinguish the pre-existing vestige of obligation to render service running with the  land and  relieved the holder of the land from the said obligation.  The vested  rights, therefore,  cannot  be divested except in accordance with the procedure established by law.  Section 15  gives over-riding  effect over  the Act though  it  is  inconsistent  with  any  other  law  or  any instrument having force of law by virtue of any such law.      The question  that arises  is: Whether the legislature, by  a   side-wind,  without   suitably  amending  the  Inams Abolition  Act,   as  interpreted  by  the  High  Court,  or repealing it,  could directly  nullify the  said law laid by the Court  and divest,  under Section  76 of  the  Act,  the vested right  and declare  that the  land was not covered by said ryotwari  patta or shall not be transferred or shall be deemed never  to have  been transferred thereunder and would treat such  persons as encroachers? It is seen that the inam Abolition Act  is a  complete code in itself and gives over- riding effect  to any  law inconsistent  therewith  creating vested rights over the former inam lands which ceased to exist on  the grant  of ryotwari  patta. Being  a ryoti land held by  a tenant,  an archaka,  a service  holder or  other employee after grant of ryothwari patta, holds the land with absolute right  to the  extent of 1/3 land as an independent and  absolute   owner.  The  pre-existing  relationship,  in relation  to   the  land   stood   terminated   and   direct relationship with  the Government  was created by imposition of ryotwari  assessment. Section 12 fastens the liability to pay ryotwari  settlement to  the  Government.  Thereby,  the whole of  inam  service  existing  prior  to  the  grant  of ryotwari patta  ceased to   have  any statutory  effect. The liability to  render service  ceased. Thereby independently, the service  holder became  entitled to hold the land in his own right  as a  holder of  land held  by him  with absolute

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

right, title  and interest  in the  said land  and to  enjoy the   property   with   heritable   rights   or   right   to alienation,  gift  over,  bequeath  etc.  The  Act  did  not make any  direct attempt  to repeal  the provisions  of  the Inams  Abolition   Act.  It  did  not  directly  attempt  to extinguish  the   right,  title  and  interest  of  ryotwari settlement  created   under  the  lnams  Abolition  Act  nor acquired the same under the Act.      The  question,   in  that   scenario,   which   emerges is whether  Section 76  is a  valid  piece  of  legislation, indirectly  repealing   the  Inams   Abolition  Act  or  the judgments of that High Court referred to hereinbefore. It  is   settled  law   that  repeal  of  an  Act  divesting vested  rights   is  always   disfavored.   Presumption   is against repeal  by  implication  and  the  reason  is  based on  the  theory  that  the  legislation,  while  enacting  a law, has  complete knowledge  of  the  pre-existing  law  on the same  subject matter.  In the  "Principles of  Statutory Interpretation" by Justice G.P. Singh, (5th Edition) 1992 at pages  186-87   under  the  caption    "Reference  to  other statutes" in  Chapter IV  (External Aids to Construction) it has been  stated that  "a  legislation  proceeding  upon  an erroneous assumption  of the  existing law  without directly amending or  declaring the  law is ineffective to change the law. "The  beliefs or assumptions of those who frame Acts of Parliament  cannot  make  the  law"  and  a  mere  erroneous assumption exhibited  in a  statute as  to the  state of the existing law  is ineffective  to express  an "intention"  to change the law; if, by such a statute, the idea is to change the law,  it will  be said that "the legislature has plainly missed fired".  The "legislation  founded on  a mistaken  or erroneous assumption  has not  the effect of making that the law which the legislature had erroneously assumed to be so." The court  will disregard  such a  belief or  assumption and also the  provision inserted in that belief or assumption. A later  statute,  therefore,  is  normally  not  used  as  an aid to construction of an earlier one."      In Sarwan  Singh &  Anr. v.  Kasturi Lal  [(1977) 2 SCR 421], the  facts were  that Section  19  of  the  Slum  Area Improvement and  Clearance Act,  1956, with  a non  obstante clause, provided  overriding effect  to any  other law being enforced in  slum area.  No person  except with the previous permission in  writing  of  the  competent  authority  could institute any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for  eviction of  a tenant  from any  building in slum area. The  procedure  in  that  behalf  had  been  provided. Chapter IIIA  of the  Delhi Rent  [Control] Act was enacted. Section 14A,  25A, 25B  and 25C  were  brought  on  statute. Section 14A with non obstante clause, empowered the landlord to require  his own  building for  residential accommodation when he  was asked  to  vacate  the  land  allotted  by  the Government. The  question arose: which of the two provisions occupying the  same field,  would prevail? At page 433, this Court held  that speaking  generally, the object and purpose of a  legislation assume  greater relevance, if the language of the  law is  obscure for  resolving inter  se  conflicts. Another test  may also  be applied,  though  the  persuasive force of  such a test is one of the factors which combine to give a similar meaning to the language  of the law. The test is that  the latter  enactment must prevail over the earlier one in  the case of conflict.  Accordingly, it was held that when two  or more  laws operate  on the  same field and each contains a  non obstante clause, case of conflicts has to be decided with  reference to the object and purpose of the law under consideration.  In that  case, the landlord who was in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Government house  was directed  to vacate the house. Special procedure in  Chapter IIIA  was  provided  to  mitigate  the hardship to  the landlord and to have eviction of his tenant from a  premises situated  in slum  area  for  his  personal occupation. To  give effect  to the  legislative object,  in view of  the conflict  by employing double non clause in the respective provisions  occupying the  same field, this Court had given  effect to  legislative  intention  by  harmonious interpretation of  both provisions  by reconciling  the  two inconsistent provisions  and  held  that  the  landlord  was entitled to  evict his tenant under Section 14A, despite the special protection given under the Slum Improvement Act.      The ratio  has no  application to  the facts situation. The provisions  in the  Delhi Rent Act are procedural format for evicting  a tenant  from a  building situated  in a slum area covered  by the  Rent Act.  But the Inams Abolition Act occupies an  entirely different field and has given absolute right, title  and interest over the land held by an archaka, service holder  or employee  etc. Section  76 of  the Act by indirect process,  without directing  repeal  of  the  Inams Abolition Act  or divesting  the title,  which became  final after conjunction  into ryotwari  land, attempted  to defeat them.      In The Income-tax Officer, Kanpur & Ors. v. Mani  Ram & Ors. [AIR  1969 SC  543 at 548 para 8], this Court had  held that, generally  speaking, a  subsequent Act  of  Parliament affords no useful guide to the meaning of  another Act which came into  existence before  the later one was framed. Under special circumstances,  the law  does,   however, admit of a subsequent Act  to be  resorted to  for this purpose but the conditions under which the later Act may be resorted for the interpretation of  the earlier  Act are strict; both must be laws on  the same  subject, and the  part of the earlier Act which is  sought to  be construed   must  be  ambiguous  and capable   of   different   meanings.   In   Inland   Revenue Commissioners v.  Dowdalls O’Mahoney  and Co.  Ltd. [1952 AC 401],  Lord   Radcliffe  had   held  that   the  beliefs  or assumptions of  those who  frame Acts  of  Parliament cannot make the  law. In Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay  [AIR 1967  SC 193  at 203],  this  Court further had  reiterated that  an Act  of Parliament does not alter the  law by  merely betraying the erroneous opinion of it. In Hariprasad Shivshanker Shukla & Anr. v. A.D. Divelkar & Ors.   [AIR  1957 SC  121 at  131], a  Constitution  Bench construing the  effect of  two enactments and the meaning to be assigned  to the  word ’retrenchment’  or a closure of an establishment on  the point  of Parliamentary exposition had held that  the earlier enactment was preferred to the latter enactment covered  under the  Industrial Disputes  Act;  so, Industrial Disputes [Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions] Act [36  of 1956]  was preferred  to the Industrial Disputes [Amendment] Act [41 of 1956].      It would  thus  be  clear  and  we  hold  that  without amending the  law  under  Inam  Abolition  Act  and  without properly removing  the foundation  of the judgments rendered by the  High Court,  the legislature  sought to  destroy the effect of  the law in Inam Abolition Act on erroneous belief or  assumption   that  it  did  not  bind  the  religion  or charitable institutions  or endowment  or that the holder of land did  not acquire  title or  no patta was granted to him and the  land was still with the institution and treated the occupant as encroacher. The legislation founded on such an erroneous assumption  does not  have the effect of depriving the holder of the land of their vested rights acquired under the  Inams   Abolition  Act.  The  legislature  has  plainly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

misfired.  Accordingly,   we  hold   that  Section   76  and Explanation II  to Section  2(22) of  the Act to that extent are invalid and  unconstitutional.      The writ  petition is accordingly allowed, but, without costs.