http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HIS HOLINESS SRILLA SRI AMBALAVANAPANDARA SANNADHI ADHEENAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Special Tribunal  of Madras  in S.T.  Appeal No.8 of 1982, dated  November 15, 1988, by two learned Judges of the Madras  High   Court  under  the  Tamil  Nadu  Inam  Estates (Abolition and Conversation into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 of 1963) (for short, the ‘Act’). The admitted facts are that respondents 3  to 438  are the  cultivating tenants  of  the lands in Kodarangulam village, which is an  estate under the Act. It  was admittedly  notified and  taken over  under the Act; as  a result,  the respondents  as well  as  the  first respondent came  to file  application under Section 9 of the Act for  issuance of  ryotwari Patta.  The Tribunal  granted Patta to  the first  respondent and  on special  appeal, the High Court had confirmed the same. It would appear that some of the  tenants had filed special leave petitions on earlier occasions also, but the same came to be summarily dismissed. The State  has come  up by  special  leave  with  permission against the  judgment of  the Special  Tribunal. Thus,  this appeal by special leave.      Shri R. Sunderavardan, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, has raised a preliminary objection to the  maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the State did  not file  any appeal  against the  order  of  the Tribunal and  that, therefore, it cannot file appeal against the Special  Tribunal’s judgment.  Though technically  he is right, but  this Court  has power  under Article  136 of the Constitution,  even  to  entertain  an  appeal  against  the original order of the Tribunal, which stood confirmed in the judgment of  the Special  Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Permission was  granted to  file the  special  leave.  Under these  circumstances,  we  do  not  see  any  force  in  the contention on the maintainability of the appeal.      It  is   contended  for  the  appellant-State  that  by operation of  the definition of "private land" under Section 3(13) of  the Act  read with  Section 3(1)(b)  of the Estate Land Act,  1908 and  in view of the presumptions drawn under Section 185  of the  Estates Land  Act and Section 65 of the Act, the land is presumed to be ryoti land and the tenant in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

occupation is a ryot unless the first respondent proves that it is  a private  land. The  cultivation test  is one of the important criteria,  apart from  other consideration,  since the tenants  have been  in continuous  possession for a long period. It  must be  presumed that the land is a ryoti land. As a  consequence, the  tenants are ryots. Accordingly, they are entitled  to ryotwari  patta under Section 9 of the Act. On  the   other  hand,   it  is   the  contention   of  Shri Sunderavardan, learned  senior counsel,  that both  Melwaram and  Kudivaram  rights  have  been  retained  by  the  first respondent. It  has been  asserting its  own right as a full owner. It  is a freehold land as confirmed in the Inams Fair Register maintained by the Inams Commissioner as early as in 1864.  Consequently,  it  is  a  private  land.  It  is  not necessary that  the  first  respondent,  being  a  religious institution,  should   personally  cultivate  the  land.  By operation of  the Amendment  Act 27 of 1966, the cultivation test, as  regards religious institutions, has been dispensed with. Consequently, the ryotwari patta granted under Section 9 of  the first  respondent is  valid in law. In view of the diverse  contentions,   the   question   that   arises   for consideration  is;   whether  the   respondent-tenants   are entitled to  ryotwari patta or the ryotwari patta granted to the first  respondent is in accordance with law? With a view to appreciate  the contentions, it is necessary to look into certain definitions  under the  Act.  Section  3(7)  defines "inam estate" to mean "an existing inam estate or a new inam estate".      "Section  3(13)   defines  "private      land" thus:      "(i) in  relation  to  an  existing      inam estate  shall  have  the  same      meaning as  in  sub-clause  (b)  of      clause (10)  of Section  3  of  the      Estates Land Act and      (ii) in  relation  to  a  new  inam      estate shall  mean  the  domain  or      home-farm land  of the  landholder,      by whatever designation known, such      as kambattam,  khas, sir or Pannai;      or..."      Section 2(16) defines ryot" thus:      "(i) in  relation  to  an  existing      inam estate  shall  have  the  same      meaning  as   in  clause   (15)  of      Section 3  of the  Estate land Act;      and      (ii) in  relation  to  a  new  inam      estate  shall  mean  a  person  who      holds   for    the    purpose    of      agriculture  ryoti   land  in  such      estate on  condition of  paying  to      the landholder  the rent  which  is      legally due upon it.      Explanation is  not necessary  for the  purpose of this case.      Section 9  deals with  grant of  ryotwari  patta.  Sub- section (1) of Section 9 envisages thus:      "9.(1) In  the case  of an existing      inam estate,  the landholder shall,      with  effect   on  and   from   the      notified date,  be  entitled  to  a      ryotwari patta in respect of      (a)  all  lands  which  immediately      before the notified date

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    (i) belonged to him as private land      within the  meaning  of  sub-clause      (b) of  clause (10) of Section 3 of      the Estates Land Act, or      (ii) stood recorded as private land      in  a  record  prepared  under  the      provisions of Chapter XI or Chapter      XII of the said Act:      Provided  that   the  private  land      referred to  in sub-clause  (i) and      (ii)      (1)  has   not  been   subsequently      converted into  ryoti land  or  has      not been  finally held  to be ryoti      land  under   Section  3-A  of  the      Madras Estate  Land  (Reduction  of      Rent) Act,  1947 (Madras Act XXX of      1947); and      (2)  is   proved   to   have   been      cultivated   by    the   landholder      himself, by  his own servants or by      hired labour  with his own or hired      stock, in  the ordinary  course  of      husbandry, for  a continuous period      of three  years within  a period of      twelve years immediately before the      1st day of April, 1960; and      (b)(1)   all   lands   which   were      properly included or which ought to      have been  properly included in the      holding of  a ryot  and which  have      been acquired  by the landholder by      inheritance or  succession under  a      will, provided  that the landholder      has cultivated  such lands himself,      by his  own servants  or  by  hired      labour with his own or hired stock,      in   the    ordinary   course    of      husbandry, from  the date  of  such      acquisition or  the 1st day of July      1950, whichever  is later  and  has      been  in   direct  and   continuous      possession of  such lands from such      later date;      (ii) all  lands which were properly      included, or  which ought  to  have      been  properly   included,  in  the      holding of  a ryot  and which  have      been acquired  by the landholder by      purchase,   exchange    or    gift,      including  purchase   a  sale   for      arrears of  rent, provided that the      landholder  has   cultivated   such      lands himself,  by his own servants      or by hired labour, with his own or      hired stock, in the ordinary course      of husbandry,  from the  1st day of      July, 1950,  and has been in direct      and continuous  possession of  such      lands from that date;      (iii)  all  lands  [not  being  (i)      lands of  the description specified      in sub-clause  (a), (b)  and (c) of      clause (16)  of Section  3  of  the      Estates Land  Act, or  (ii)  forest

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

    lands] which  have been voluntarily      abandoned  or   relinquished  by  a      ryot, or  which have  never been in      the occupation  of a ryot, provided      that the  landholder has cultivated      such  lands  himself,  by  his  own      servants or  by hired  labour, with      his own  or  hired  stock,  in  the      ordinary course  of husbandry, from      the 1st  day of  July, 1950 and has      been  in   direct  and   continuous      possession of  such lands from that      date.      Sub-section (2) of Section 9 reads as under:      "(2) In  the case  of  a  new  inam      estate the  landholder shall,  with      effect on  and  from  the  notified      date, be  entitled  to  a  ryotwari      patta in respect of      (a)  all  lands  which  immediately      before the  notified date  belonged      to him as private land:      Provided  that   in  the   case  of      private land  specified  in  clause      (13)(ii)(a) of Section 2, such land      is proved  to have  been cultivated      by the  landholder himself,  by his      own servants  or by  hired  labour,      with his  or hired  stock,  in  the      ordinary course of husbandry, for a      continuous period  of  three  years      within  a  period  of  three  years      within a  period  of  twelve  years      immediately before  the 1st  day of      April 1960; and      (b)(i) all  lands in the holding of      a ryot and which have been acquired      by the landholder by inheritance or      succession under  a will,  provided      that the  landholder has cultivated      such  lands  himself,  by  his  own      servants or  by hired  labour  with      his own  or  hired  stock,  in  the      ordinary course  of husbandry, from      the date of such acquisition or the      1st day  of April,  1960, whichever      is later and has been in direct and      continuous possession of such lands      from such later date;      (ii) all  lands in  the holding  or      ryot and  which have  been acquired      by  the   landholder  by  purchase,      exchange   or    gift,    including      purchase at  a sale  for arrears of      rent, provided  that the landholder      has cultivated  such lands himself,      by his  own servants  or  by  hired      labour,  with   his  own  or  hired      stock, in  the ordinary  course  of      husbandry, from  the  27th  day  of      September, 1955,  or from  the date      of such  acquisition  whichever  is      later and  has been  in direct  and      continuous possession of such lands      from such later date:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

    Provided that  nothing in this sub-      clause   shall    apply   to    any      acquisition by  purchase,  exchange      or gift  including  purchase  at  a      sale for  arrears of  rent  by  the      landholder on  or after the 1st day      of April, 1960.      (iii) all lands [not being (i) land      of  the  description  specified  in      items (a),  (b) and (c) of the sub-      clause  (ii)   of  clause  (17)  of      Section 2,  or (ii)  forest  lands]      which   have    been    voluntarily      abandoned  or   relinquished  by  a      ryot, or  which have  never been in      the occupation  of a ryot, provided      that the  landholder has cultivated      such  lands  himself,  by  his  own      servants or  by hired  labour, with      his own  or  hired  stock,  in  the      ordinary course  of husbandry, from      the 27th  day of  September,  1955,      and  has   been   in   direct   and      continuous possession of such lands      from that date."      It would,  thus, be  seen that  a ryot  in an estate is defined under  clause (15)  of Section 3 of the Estates Land Act and  if he is a new ryot, it is defined under sub-clause (b) of  clause (16)  of sub-section  (2) of  the Act. Though there is  a dispute  as to  whether it is a new estate or an existing estate,  in  view  of  the  clinching  evidence  or record, we  have no  hesitation to  conclude that  it is  an existing estate.  In the  judgment under appeal, the learned Judges have  referred to  the confirmation  of title deed by Inams Commissioner  on September  10, 1864  wherein  it  was recorded that  the title  deed relates to the "whole village of Kodarangulam  and its  hamlets as  whole village" and its annual quit  rent  was  Rs.2,810/-  inclusive  of  the  jodi already charged  on the  land. Thus, it is clear that it was as existing  estate, but not a new estate as presumed by the learned Judges  in the  High Court.  The question  then  is: whether the  tenants are ryots within the meaning of Section 3(15) of  the Estate  Land Act?  The said  section reads  as under:      "3(15). "Ryot"  means a  person who      holds   for    the    purpose    of      agriculture ryoti land in an estate      on  condition   of  paying  to  the      landholder  the   rent   which   is      legally due upon it."      Section 3  (16) defines  ryot  land      means cultivable  land in an estate      other than  private land,  but does      not include      "(a) beds and bunds of tanks and of      supply,   drainage,    surplus   or      irrigation channels;]      (b) threshing-floor, cattle-stands,      village  sites,   and  other  lands      situated in  any estate  which  are      set apart for the common use of the      villagers;      (c) lands granted on service tenure      either   free   of   rent   or   on      favourable rates of rent if granted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

    before the  passing of  this Act or      free of  rent if granted after that      date, so long as the service tenure      subsists."      Ryoti land means entirable lands in an estate by a ryot who holds  it for agriculture on condition of paying rent to the land-holder  which is  legally due  other  than  private land.      Section 185  draws a  presumption that  the land  in an Inam village is not a private land. Similarly, Section 65 of the Act  draws a  presumption that it is a ryoti land unless it is proved that it is a private land.      The question  therefore, is:  whether it  is a  private land? "Private land" has been defined under Section 3 (1) of the Estate Land Act, which reads as under:      "(a)  in  the  case  of  an  estate      within the  meaning of  [sub-clause      (a), (b), (c) or (e) of clause (2)]      means the  domain or home-farm land      of  the   landholder  by   whatever      designation   known,    such    as,      kambattam, khas, sir or Pannai, and      includes all  land which  is proved      to have  been cultivated as private      land by  the landholder himself, by      his own servants or by hired stock,      for a  continuous period  of twelve      years   immediately    before   the      commencement of this Act; and      (b) in the case of an estate within      the meaning  of sub-clause  (d)  of      clause (2), means Pannai; or      (ii) land  which is  proved to have      been cultivated  as private land by      the landholder  himself, by his own      servants or  by hired  labour, with      his  own  or  hired  stock,  for  a      continuous period  of twelve years,      immediately before the first day of      July  1908,   provided   that   the      landholder   has    retained    the      kudivaram ever  since and  has  not      converted the land into ryoti land;      and      (iii) land  which is proved to have      been cultivated  by the  landholder      himself, by  his own servants or by      hired labour, with his own or hired      stock, for  a continuous  period of      twelve years immediately before the      first  day   of   November,   1933,      provided that  the  landholder  has      retained the  kudivaram ever  since      and as  not converted the land into      ryoti land; or      A reading of it would clearly indicate that in the case of an  estate within  the meaning of clause (b) of Section 2 "private land"  means the  domain or  home-farm land  of the landholder of whatever designation known, such as kambattam, khas, sir or Pannai or the land which is proved to have been cultivated as private land by the landholder himself, by his own servants  or by  hired labour,  with his  own  or  hired stock, for  a continuous period of twelve years, immediately before the  first day  of  July,  1908,  provided  that  the landholder has retained the kudivaram ever since and has not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

converted the land into ryoti land. The question, therefore, is: whether  the first respondent, though it was declared as a freehold  land, had  converted it into a ryoti land? It is seen that  there  is  overwhelming  evidence  on  record  to establish that  the tenants  have been  in possession of the land for  a long  period  and  ever  since  they  have  been cultivating the land.      In  T.S.   Pl.  P.   Chidambaram  Chettiar  vs.  T.K.B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar  & Ors.  [(1968) 2 SCR 754 at 765], this Court had held thus:      "It   seems   to   use   that   the      definition   reads   as   a   whole      indicates clearly that the ordinary      test for ‘private land’ is the test      of retention  by the landholder for      his personal use and cultivation by      him   or    under   his    personal      supervision. No  doubt, such  lands      may be  let on short leases for the      convenience   of   the   landholder      without  losing  their  distinctive      character;  but   it  is   not  the      intention or  the scheme of the Act      to treat  as  private  those  lands      with reference  to which  the  only      peculiarity is  the fact  that  the      landlord owns both the farms in the      lands and has been letting them out      on short  term leases.  There must,      in our opinion, be something in the      evidence either  by way of proof of      direct cultivation or by some clear      indication of  an intent  to regard      these  land  as  retained  for  the      personal use  of the  landholder an      his establishment in order to place      those lands in the special category      of private  lands in which a tenant      under  the   Act   cannot   acquire      occupancy rights.  In  the  present      case, there  is no  proof that  the      lands were ever directly cultivated      by the landholder. Admittedly, soon      after the grant of 1862, the estate      came under  the  administration  of      Receivers, who  always let  out the      lands  to   the   tenants   to   be      cultivated."      In Pollisetti Pullamma & Ors vs. Kalluri Rameswaramma & Ors. [1990  Supp. (2) SCR 393], this Court had held that the ratio of  the  Full  Bench  of  the  Madras  High  Court  in Periannan &  Ors. vs.  Airabadeeswarar Soundaranayagi  Amman Kovil of  O’Siruvayal  by  its  truestees  M.A.R.  Periannan Chettiar &  Ors. [AIR  1952 Madras  323] was  held no longer good law in the light of the ratio in Chidambaram Chettiar’s case  (supra).   The  same  was  also  reiterated  in  later decisions.      It is  seen from  the evidence  on record that there is overwhelming evidence that the tenants have been cultivating that land  and ever since they are in possession, though the first respondent  had filed a suit against them for evicting and other reliefs. In those suits, it was admitted that they were cultivating  the land  as tenants and committed default in paying  rent. On that admission, the necessary conclusion is that  the first respondent has converted the lands by its

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

conduct as  a ryoti  land and  the  tenants  have  kudivaram rights and  given the  land on  leasehold to the tenants and was collecting  the rent  from them.  The tenants   are  the tillers of  the soil  and have fundamental right to economic empowerment under  Article 39(b)  which enjoins distribution of material  resources to  accord socio-economic justice and means for  development for  social  status  and  dignity  of person. Land  is a  source of  livelihood. There is a strong linkage between the land and social status. The strip of the land on  which the till and live assures them social justice and  dignity  of  person  providing  near  decent  means  of livelihood. So,  economic empowerment  is their  fundamental right. They  became the  ryots and,  ever since, remained in possession  as   ryots.  Therefore,  they  are  entitled  to ryotwari Patta.      It is  seen that the first respondent had purchased the land for  the maintenance of the Math as well as the temple. Under  these   circumstances,  it   is  necessary  that  the Institution and  the temple  are required  to be maintained. Though the  tenant/respondents are  entitled to the ryotwari Patta,  they  should  be  burdened  with  the  liability  to maintain the  Institution and  the temple. As a consequence, we direct that every tenant shall deliver, regularly, to the Adheenam, the  first respondent,  every year, three quintals of paddy  per acre within fifteen days after the harvest. In the event  of their  committing default  in delivery  of the three quintals  of paddy  per acre,  they are  liable to and shall pay  interest at  the rate  of 21%  from the  date  of default  till  date  of  payment.  In  the  event  of  their committing  further  default  in  making  the  payment  with interest, if  the Institution  is driven to lay the suit for recovery of  the same,  they should  also be  liable to pay, apart from  the costs to be incurred for the recovery of the said amount, exemplary costs for the institution of the suit for recovery  of the  amount.  With  these  conditions,  the respondent-tenants are  entitled to  grant of ryotwari Patta under Section 9 of the Act.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed,  but   in  the circumstances, without costs.