http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: BALMADIES PLANTATIONS LTD. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/04/1972

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) SHELAT, J.M. RAY, A.N. DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1972 AIR 2240            1973 SCR  (1) 258  1972 SCC  (2) 133  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1973 SC1461  (1201)  R          1973 SC2734  (17,33)  RF         1975 SC1193  (24)  E          1990 SC1771  (9)

ACT: Constitution  of India, 1950-Article 31A 2(a)(i) and  (iii)- Estate-Forests in Janmam Lands-Requirement of cl. (iii) also need not be satisfied-Agrarian Reform-Acquisition of forests in  Janmam lands-Mere transfer of ownership or  augmentation of  resources of the State not sufficient to show object  of agrarian reform. Gudalur  Janmam  Estates  (Abolition  and  Conversion   into Ryotwari)  Act,  1969 (Act  24  of  1969)-Constitutionality- Resettlement  of 1926-If has the effect of  conversion  into ryotwari lands.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants and the petitioners challenged the vires  of the  Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and  Conversion  into Ryotwari) Act, 1969, on the ground that it was violative  of articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution.  Their case was that their lands in the Gudalur Taluk, in the State of Tamil Nadu,  were  previously Janmam  estates,  but,  subsequently became  ryotwari estates, especially after the  Resettlement of  1926,and  as such, the provisions of the  Act  were  not applicable  to these lands; that so far as the forest  areas in the Janmam lands in question were concerned they did  not constitute  "estate"; and that the acquisition of the  lands was  not for implementing agrarian reforms  and,  therefore, did not get the protection of article 31A. HELD  : that the provisions of s. 3 of the Act in so far  as they  related to the transfer of forests ’in Janmam  estates to  the government were not protected by article  31A,  and, being  violative of the Constitution had to be struck  down; and  that the vires of the Act in other respects had  to  be upheld.  (i)  The effect of the Resettlement of 1926 was  to  retain the Janmam estates and not to abolish the same or to convert

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

them  into ryotwari estates.  There was merely a  change  of nomenclature.  Government Janmam lands, were called the  new holdings  while  private Janmam lands were  called  the  old holdings.    In  respect  of  Janmabhogam  (Janmi’s   share) relating  to  government  Janmam lands,  the  order  further directed that the amount to be paid to the government should include  both the taram assessment and Janmabhogam.   It  is difficult  to  infer from these that Janmam rights  in  the, lands  in  question  were extinguished  and  converted  into ryotwari  estates.  The use of the word Janmabhogam, on  the contrary,  indicates that the rights of Jenmis were kept  in tact. [271B] Kottarathil  Kochuni and Others v. The State of  Madras  and Others,  [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887, Karimbil Kunhilkoman v.  State of Kerala, [1962] 1 Supp.  S.C.R. 847 and Secretary of State v. Ashtamurthi, I.L.R. 13 Madras 89, referred to. The grant of a right of relinquishment to a Janmi would  not by  itself convert janmam rights in the lands into  ryotwari estate. [272A-B] 259 (Khanna, J.) Further,  apart  from the lands in question,  there  are  no janmam estates in the State of Tamil Nadu (Madras).  To hold that  the Janmam rights in the lands ceased to  exist  after the Resettlement of 1926 would have the effect of  rendering the words, in clause (2)(a)(i) of article 31A, wherein there is  a  reference  to Janmam rights in the  State  of  Madras meaningless and without any purpose. [272-D] (ii)As  Janmam  lands  fall under clause  (2)  (a)  (i)  of article   31A  it  is  not  essential  to  show   that   the requirements  of  clause (2)(a)(iii) too are  satisfied  for such  lands and it would make no difference whether  forests are a part of the Janmam lands.  All lands which are part of a Janmam estate of a Janmi in the State of Madras and Kerala would constitute "estate" as mentioned in Clause (2) (a) (i) of Article 31A. [273-E] (iii)The  object  and general scheme of the Act  is  to abolish intermediaries between the state and the  cultivator and  to help the actual cultivator by giving him the  status of directs relationship between himself and the State.   The Act, as such, in its broad outlines,, should be held to be a measure  of  agrarian  reform  and  would  consequently   be protected by article 31A of the Constitution.  Therefore, it is  immune from attack on the ground of being  violative  of articles 14, 19 or 31. [274-A] Vajrayelu  Madaliar  v. Special Deputy Collector,  Madras  & Anr. [1965] 1 S.C.R. 614, referred to. (iv)But,  the acquisition of forests in Janmam  estates  is not in furtherance of the objective of agrarian reform, and, as  such, is not protected by Art. 31A.  In the  absence  of anything  in  the  Act to show the  purpose  for  which  the forests are to be used by the Government, it cannot be  said that the acquisition of the forests in Janmam land would  be for  a  purpose related to agrarian reform.  The  mere  fact that  the ownership of forests would stand  transferred,  to the State would not show that the object of the transfer  is to bring about agrarian reform.  Augmenting the resources of the State by itself, and in the absence of anything more re- garding the purpose or utilisation of those resources cannot be  held to be a measure. of agrarian reform.  There  is  no material  on  the record to indicate that  the  transfer  of forests  from the Janmi to the Government is linked  in  any way  with  a  scheme of agrarian  reform  or  betterment  of village ceremony. [274-H] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Anand Brahma, [1967] 1 S.C.R.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

362, held inapplicable.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 373 of 1970. Under   Article  32  of  the  Constitution  of   India   for enforcement  of  the Fundamental Rights with  Civil  Appeals Nos. 2211 and 2212 of 1970 and 85 to 91 of 1971. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated October 26,  1970 of  the  Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.  64,  117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 185, 186 and 220 of 1970 respectively. M.C. Chagla and K. Jayaram, for the petitioners (in  W.P. No. 373 of 1970). M.Natesan, Sardar Bahadur Saharya, K. Jayaram and Yougin- dra  Khushalani,  for  the appellant (in C.A.  No.  2211  of 1970). 260 M.C. Setalvad and K. Jayaram, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 2212 of 1970). K.   Jayaram, for the appellants (in C.As. Nos. 85 to 91 of 1971). S.   Govind Swaminathan, Advocate-General for the State of Tamil     Nadu, S. Mohan, A. V. Rangam, A. Subhashini and N. S. Sivan, for the respondent (in all the matters). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna,   J.  The  Gudalur  Janmam  Estates  Abolition   and Conversion  into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (Act No. 24  of  1969), hereinafter  referred to as the Act, received the assent  of the President on December 6, 1969, after it had been enacted by  the  legislature  of the State of Tamil  Nadu.   It  was thereafter  published in the gazette on December  17,  1969. The  Act  extends  to  the Gudalur  taluk  of  the  Nilgiris district  and applies to all janmam estates.  It is to  come into  force  on such date as the State  Government  may,  by notification,  appoint.  This Court stayed the issue of  the notification  and, as such, no notification has so far  been issued. Nine  petitions  under article 226 of  the  Constitution  of India  were filed in the Madras High Court  challenging  the vires  of  the Act on the ground that it  was  violative  of articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.  The case of the petitioners  was that their lands in the Gudalur taluk  were previously  janmam estates but subsequently became  ryotwari estates,  especially after the resettlement of 1926 and,  as such, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to those lands.   The Act, it was stated, did not get the  protection of  article  31A  of the Constitution.   One  of  the  above petitions was filed by O’Valley Estate Ltd.  This petitioner had taken on lease an estate comprising about 2,000 acres of land in the 19th century from the Nilambur Kovilakam who was the  proprietor of that land besides some other  land.   The Company  (O’Valley  Estate  Ltd.) has a  plantation  on  the estate  and is engaged in cultivation and  manufacturing  of tea  and other plantation products.  The Nilambur  Kovilakam was the petitioner in another petition. The nine petitions were resisted by the State of Tamil  Nadu on the ground that the lands in question were janmam estates and had retained that character till the passing of the Act. The  State  of  Tamil Nadu also invoked  the  protection  of article  31A of the Constitution.  The nine  petitions  were dismissed  by  the Madras High Court by  a  common  judgment given in the petition filed by O’Valley Estate Ltd.  It  was held  that  the lands were janmam estates and had  not  lost

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

that character.  The Act was held to be 261 (Khanna, J.) protected,  by  article 3 1 A of  the  Constitution.   Civil appeals Nos. 2211 and 2212 of 1970 and Nos. 85 to 91 of 1971 have  been  filed  against the above judgment  of  the  High Court. Writ  petition No. 373 of 1970 has been filed under  article 32  of the Constitution. by Balmadies Plantations  Ltd.  and its  share holder Dayanand Bansilal Saxena  challenging  the vires  of  the Act or. the ground that it  is  violative  of articles  14,  19  and 31 of the  Constitution  and  is  not protected by article 31A.  According to the petitioner,  the janmam estates which are now intended to be abolished by the Act  had been converted into ryotwari estates.  The  purpose of  the  Act, it is further stated, is not  to  bring  about agrarian  reform.  The petitioner company in this  case  had taken on lease 170.78 hectares from the Nilambur  Kovilakam, the appellant in civil appeal No. 2211 of 1970, in the  19th century.   Out of the above area, 143.22 hectares  is  under coffee  plantation, while the rest of the land  consists  of forests and waste land. The  writ petition has been resisted by the State  of  Tamil Nadu   and  the  affidavit  of  Shri  A.  S.   Venkataraman, Additional  Secretary  has been filed in opposition  to  the petition.   The  respondent has controverted  the  different grounds taken by the petitioner. Gudalur taluk, it may be stated, comprises 12 villages.  The said taluk was originally part of Malabar district which now forms   part   of  Kerala  State.   O’Valley   village   was transferred  to  the Nilgiris in 1873 and the  other  eleven villages were transferred in 1877.  Originally the janmis in Malabar  were absolute proprietors of the land and  did  not pay land revenue.  After Malabar was annexed by the  British in  the beginning of the 19th century, the  janmis  conceded the  liability to pay land revenue.  According to  the  case set  up  by the petitioner-appellants, there was  a  gradual orision of the rights of janmis in the lands in question and the  janmam  estates  became  ryotwari  estates  after   the resettlement  of 1926.  As such, the Act, it  is  submitted, does not apply to the lands in dispute.  Before dealing with this aspect of the matter, it would be pertinent to refer to the  different provisions of the Act.  Section 2 of the  Act contains the various definitions.  Relevant clauses of  that section read as under :               "S.  2.  In  this  Act,  unless  the   context               otherwise requires,-               (1)   all  expressions defined in the  Malabar               Tenancy  Act  shall have  the  same,respective               meanings    as   in   that   Act   with    the               modifications, if any, made by this Act;               (2)"appointed day" means the date appointed by               the Government under subsection (4) of section               1;               (4)   "forest"  includes waste or arable  land               containing trees, shrubs or reeds. 262               Explanation.-A  forest shall not cease  to  be               such  by  reason only of the fact that,  in  a               portion  thereof, trees, shrubs or  reeds  are               felled,  or  lands are cultivated,  or  rocks,               roads, tanks, rivers or the like exist;               (6)   "jarmiam  estate"  means any  parcel  or               parcels of land included  in  the  holding  of               janmi;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

             (7)   "janmi"  means a person entitled to  the               absolute proprietorship of land and includes a               trustee in respect thereof;               (9)   "plantation  crop"  means  tea,  coffee,               rubber, cinchona     or cardamom;               (11)  "tenant"   means  a  verumpattamdar   as               defined  in sub-clause (a) of clause  (29)  of               section 3 of the Malabar Tenancy Act;" Section  3  of  the Act deals with  the  vesting  of  janmam estates in Government, and reads as under : "3.   Vesting of janmam estates, etc.,  in  Government.-With effect  on and from the appointed day and save as  otherwise expressly provided in this Act- (a)  the Malabar Tenancy Act, the, Malabar Land Registration Act,  1895  (Tamil  Nadu  Act  III  of  1896),  the  Gudalur Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1931 (Tamil  Nadu Act  XIII  of 1931) and all other enactments  applicable  to janmam  estates  as  such,  shall be  deemed  to  have  been repealed in their application to janmam estates; (b)  every  janmam estate including all communal  lands  and porambokes,  waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines  and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries, and ferries situated within the boundaries thereof  shall stand transferred to the Government and  vest in them free of all incumbrances, and the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery  Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1864),  the  Tamil Nadu Irrigation Cess Act, 1865 (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1865), the  Tamil  Nadu Cultivating Tenants  Protection  Act,  1955 (Tamil  Nadu  Act XXV of 1955), the Tamil  Nadu  Cultivating Tenants  (Payment  of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 (Tamil  Nadu  Act XXIV  of  1956)  and, all  other  enactments  applicable  to ryotwari lands shall apply to the janmam estate; 263 (Khanna, J.)               (c)   all rights and interests created by  the               janmi in or over his jamnam estate before  the               appointed day shall as against the  Government               cease and determine;               (d)   the  Government may, after removing  any               obstruction  that  may be  offered,  forthwith               take  possession of the janmam estate and  all               accounts, registers, pattas, muchilikas, maps,               plans  and  other documents  relating  to  the               janmam estate which the Government may require               for the administration thereof;               Provided   that  the  Government   shall   not               dispossess  any  person  of any  land  in  the               janmam   estate  in  respect  of  which   they               consider that he is prima facie entitled to  a               ryotwari  patta  pending the decision  of  the               appropriate  authority  under this Act  as  to               whether such person is entitled to such patta;               (e)   the  janmi  and any other  person  whose               rights  stand transferred under clause (b)  or               cease and determine under clause (c) shall  be               entitled only to such rights and privileges as               are recognised or conferred on him by or under               this Act;               (f)   the  relationship of janmi  and  tenant,               shall as between     them,  be   extinguished;               and               (g)   any rights and privileges which may have               accrued  in  the janmam estate to  any  person               before  the  appointed day against  the  janmi               shall  cease  and determine and shall  not  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

             enforceable against the Government or  against               the  janmi  and  every such  person  shall  be               entitled only to such rights and privileges as               are recognised or conferred on him by or under               this Act." According  to section 8, the janmi shall with effect on  and from  the appointed day be entitled to a ryotwari  patta  in respect  of all lands proved to have been cultivated by  the janmi  himself,  or by the members of his  tarwad,  tavazhi, illom  or family or 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  agricultural years   immediately  before  the  1st  day  of  June   1969. Explanation  I to that section defines the word  "cultivate" to  include  the  planting and rearing  of  topes,  gardens, orchards and plantation crops.  According to Explanation 11, where any land is cultivated with plantation crops, any land occupied by any building for the purpose of or ancillary  to the cultivation of such crops or the preparation of the same for  the market and any waste land lying interspersed  among or contiguous to the planted area 264 upto a maximum of twenty-five per centum of the planted area shall     be constituted to be land cultivated by the janmi. Section 9 deals     with  lands  in’  respect  of  which   a ’tenant  is  entitled to ryotwari patta.  According  to  the section,  every  tenant shall, with effect on and  from  the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of the lands in his occupation.  The right of the tenant to the ryotwari  patta  is  subject  to  the  conditions  regarding cultivation  mentioned  in  the Provisos  to  that  section. Section  10 provides that where no person is entitled  to  a ryotwari patta in respect of a land in a janmam estate under section 8 or section 9 and the land vests in the Government, a person who had been’ personally cultivating such land  for a continuous period of three agricultural years  immediately before  the  1st day of June 1969, shall be  entitled  to  a ryotwari  patta in respect of that land.  This right too  is subject to conditions mentioned in that section.   According to  section  11,  no ryotwari patta shall  be  granted  with respect.  to  the following categories situated  within  the limits of a janmam estate               (a)   forests;               (b)   beds  and bunds of tanks and of  supply,               drainage, surplus    or irrigation, channels;               (c)   threshing floor, cattle stands,  village               sites, carttracks,   roads,  temple sites  and               such other lands situated in any    janmam               estate, as are set apart for the common use of               the villagers;               (d)   rivers, streams and other porambokes. Section 12  empowers the Settlement Officer to inquire  into the claims of any person for a ryotwari patta under the  Act in  respect  of any land in a janmam estate  and  decide  in respect of which land the claim should be allowed.  A  right of appeal against the decision of the Settlement Officer  to the  ’Tribunal  appointed  under the Act is  given  by  sub- Section  (3)  of  section 12.  The  Tribunal,  according  to section  7, shall consist of one Person only who shall be  a Judicial  Officer not below the rank of  Subordinate  Judge. Section  13  fastens  liability  to  Pay  land  revenue   to Government on the person Who becomes entitled to a  ryotwari patta  under  the Act.  As regards a  building,  section  14 Provides that with effect on and from the appointed day, the same  shall  vest  in the person who  Owned  it  immediately

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

before that day, subject to the conditions mentioned in that section.  Section 15 deals with rights of sons admitted into possession of any land in a janmam estate by any janmi for a non-Agricultural  purpose while section 16  makes  provision for directions to be issued by the Government in respect of a person admitted by a janmi into possession of any land  of the 2 65 (Khanna, J.) description  specified in section II. Section 17 relates  to the rights of lessees of plantations and reads as under :               "S.  17.  Rights of lessees  of  plantations.-               (1)(a) Where, at any time before the appointed               day  the  janmi has created by way  of  lease,               rights   in   any  lands   for   purposes   of               cultivation  of plantation crops, the  Govern-               ment  may, if in their opinion, it is  in  the               public  interest to do so, by notice given  to               the person concerned terminate the right  with               effect  from such date as may be specified  in               the  notice,  not  being  earlier  than  three               months from the date thereof.               (b)   The  person  whose  right  has  been  so               terminated  shall be entitled to  compensation               from the Government which shall be  determined               by the Board of Revenue in such manner as  may               be  prescribed, having regard to the value  of               the  right and the period for which the  right               was created.               (c)   Where  any such right is not  determined               under   this  sub-section,   the   transaction               whereby such right was created shall be deemed               to,  be valid and all rights  and  obligations               arising thereunder, on or after the  appointed               day,  shall be enforceable by or  against  the               Government               Provided that the transaction was not void  or               illegal under any law in force at the time.               (2)   The Government may, if in their opinion,               it is in the public interest to do so,  impose               reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any               right continued, under this section.               Explanation.-Any rights granted in  perpetuity               shall  cease and determine and be  dealt  with               under  section  (3)  (e) and  not  under  this               section." Section 18 deals with the rights of certain other lessees. Chapter  TV of the Act, which contains sections 19  and  20, deals with survey and settlement of janmam estates.  Chapter V,  which  contains sections 21 to 30, makes  provision  for determination  and payment of compensation.  As regards  the Nilambur  Kovilagam,  one of the appellants before  us,  the explanation to section 22 reads as under               "Explanation.-For   the   purposes   of   this               section,  the  janmam  estate  owned  by   the               Nilambur Kovilagam which is partly divided and               partly held in common by the several  tavazhis               shall be construed as a single janmam estate." 8-1208SupCI/72 266 Amount  of compensation is the subject of section 28,  while section 29 relates to the determination of basic annual  sum and  compensation.   The subject deal with  by  chapter  VI, containing sections 31 to 46, is "Deposit and  Apportionment of Compensation. Sections 47 to 50 contained in chapter  VII

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

make provision for recovery of contribution from  pattadars. Chapter VIII contains the miscellaneous provisions.  Section 58 makes final the orders passed by the various  authorities under  the  Act,  while section 60  confers  powers  on  the Government  to, make rules for carrying out the purposes  of the  Act.   The rules are required to be  published  in  the gazette  and  to be placed on the table, of both  Houses  of Legislature, so that the Houses may, if they so deem proper, make modification in any such rule. We may at this stage advert to janmam estate.  According  to Land  Tenures  in the Madras Presidency  by  S.  Sundararaja Iyengar, Second Edition (p. 49), the exclusive right to, and hereditary  possession of the soil in Malabar is denoted  by the  term  jenmam  which means  birthright  and  the  holder thereof  is known as jenmi, jenmakaran or mutalalan.   Until the conquest of Malabar by the Mahomedan princes of  Mysore, the  jenmis  appear to have held their lands free  from  any liability  to  make  any  payment, either  in  money  or  in produce, to government and therefore until that period, such an absolute property was vested in them as was not found  in any other part of the Presidency.  Sir Charles Turner  after noticing  the  various forms of  transactions  prevalent  in Malabar stated that they pointed to an ownership of the soil as  complete  as  was enjoyed by a  freeholder  in  England. Subba  Rao J. (as he then was), speaking for the  Court,  in the  case of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and  Others  v. The State of Madras and Others(1) observed :               "A janmam right is the freehold interest in  a               property  situated  in Kerala.   Moor  in  his               "Malabar  Law  and Custom" describes it  as  a               hereditary proprietorship.  A janmam  interest               may,  therefore, be described as  "proprietary               interest  of a landlord in lands", And such  a               janmam  right is described as "estate" in  the               Constitution." It  was held that the proprietor called janmi  could  create many subordinate interests or tenures like lease or mortgage in a janmam estate.  It is not, however, necessary to dilate upon the matter as janmam estate has been defined in  clause (6) of section 2 of the Act to mean any parcel or parcels of land  included in the holding of a janmi.  Janmi,  according to  clause (7) of the said section, means a person  entitled to  the  absolute  proprietorship of  land  and  includes  a trustee in respect thereof. (1)  [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887. 267 (Khanna, J.) Ryotwari  or  kulwar system was first  introduced  into  the British  possessions  by  Col.   Read  in  1792.   When  the Baramahal  and  Saleem were ceded to the British  by  Tippu, Lord  Cornwall  is specially deputed Col.   Read  for  their settlement.    The   prevailing  system  of   land   revenue settlement  at the time was the permanent settlement.   Col. Read,  however,  deemed it prudent to enter  into  temporary settlements  with the actual cultivators and this gave  rise to a new system since designated ryotwari or kulwar  system. The  system introduced by Col.  Read embraced the survey  of every  holding in the district and a field assessment  based on  the  productive powers of the soil.  The  ryot  was  not regarded  as  the  proprietor  of the soil  but  only  as  a cultivating tenant from whom was to be exacted by government all  that  the  he  could  afford.   Certain   objectionable features  of the ryotwari system were then noticed,  and  an effort  was made to eliminate those objectionable  features. The  ryotwari system in force at present means the  division

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

of  all  arable  land, whether  cultivated  or  waste,  into blocks,  the assessment of each block at a fixed rate for  a term of years and the exaction of revenue from each occupant according to the area of land thus assessed.  That area  may remain either constant or may be varied from year to year at the occupant’s pleasure by the relinquishment of old  blocks or the occupation of new ones.  This distinguishing  feature of  this  system is that the state is  brought  into  direct contact  with the occupant of land and collects its  revenue through  its  own servants without the  intervention  of  an intermediate  agent  such as the Zemindar.  All  the  income derived  from  extended  cultivation  goes  to  the   state. Ryotwari  lands  are  known as taraf lands  in  the  Tanjore District, and as ayan, sirkar. koru, or government lands  in the other parts of the Presidency (see pages 152 and 153  of Land  Tenure  in the Madras Presidency, Second  Edition,  by Sundararaja Iyengar). According  to Land System of British India by  Baden-Powell, the  holders of ryotwari pattas used to hold lands on  lease from  Government.  The basic idea of ryotwari settlement  is that every bit of land is assessed to a certain revenue  and assigned  a  survev number for a period of years,  which  is usually  thirty,  and each occupant of such  land  holds  it subject  to his paying the land-revenue fixed on that  land. But it is open to the occupant to relinquish his land or  to take  new  land which has been relinquished  by  some  other occupant  or  become  otherwise  available  on  payment   of assessment.  The above observations were referred to by this Court  in  the  case  of Karimbil  Kunhikoman  v.  State  of Kerala(1) and it was said :               "The  ryot  is generally called  a  tenant  of               Government but he is not a tenant from year to               year  and cannot be ---,ousted as long  as  he               pays the land-revenue assessed.  He (1)  [1962] 1 Supp.  S.C.R. 847. 268 .lm15 has  also the right to sell or mortgage or gift the land  or lease it and the transferee becomes liable in his place  for the revenue.  Further, the lessee of a ryotwari pattadar has no  rights  except those conferred under the  lease  and  is generally  a sub-tenant at-will liable to ejectment  at  the end of each year.  In the Manual of Administration as quoted by  Baden-Powell,  in Vol.  III of Land Systems  of  British India  at p. 129, the ryotwari tenure is summarised as  that "of a tenant of the State enjoying a tenant-right which  can be  inherited, sold, or burdened for debt in  precisely  the same  manner  as a proprietary right subject always  to  the payment of the revenue due to the State".  Though  therefore the ryotwari pattadar is virtually like a proprietor and has many of the advantages of such a proprietor, he could  still relinquish or abandon his, land in favour of the government. It  is because of this position that the  ryotwari  pattadar was  never  considered a proprietor of the  land  under  his patta,  though  he  had many of the  advantages  of  a  pro- prietor." This  Court  held in the above case that the  land  held  by ryotwari  pattadars in the area which came to the  State  of Kerala  by virtue of the States Reorganization Act from  the State  of  Madras were not ’estates’ within the  meaning  of article  3 1 A (2) of the Constitution.  Subsequent to  that decision,  clause  (2)  of article 31A was  amended  by  the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964.  As a result of that amendment, ’estate’ would also include any land held under ryotwari settlement.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

Let  us  now go into the question as to whether  the  janmam rights  in  the lands in question have been  converted  into ryotwari estate.  We are concerned in the present case  with the  settlement  of  1886  and  resettlement  of  1926.   In connection  with  the settlement of 1886, G.O.  741  Revenue dated August 27, 1886 was issued and its main purpose was to settle the lands which had been escheated to the  Government and  to  collect revenue for the State An attempt  was  then made  to  have direct dealing with the  cultivators  without notice  to the janmi.  This act of the State was held to  be against law by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court  in the  case of Secretary of State v. Ashtamurthi(1).  In  that case  the  Collector  of Malabar let defendant  No.  2  into possession of certain waste land in 1869 under a cowle,  and in  1872 granted to him a patta for it.  The  cowledar  then brought the land under cultivation but subsequently left  it uncultivated  and failed to pay the assessed  revenue.   The land  was  consequently  attached in  1885  for  arrears  of revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act and sold to defendant No. 3. The plaintiff. who was the janmi of the (1)  I.L.R. 13 Madras 89. 269 (Khanna, J.) land, had no notice of the grant of either the cowle or  the patta.   He asserted his right to janmabhogam in a  petition presented to the Collector at the time of the sale, but  the sale  proceeded  without reference to his claim.   Suit  was thereafter  brought by the plaintiff to set aside the  sale. It  was held that the interest of the janmi did not pass  by the sale.  Parker, J. in the above context observed :               "The  evidence  shows that the janmis  or  the               proprietors  of the soil in Malabar have  long               been  in the habit of leasing out the  greater               portion of their estates to kanomdars who  are               thus in the immediate occupancy of the greater               part  of  the  soil.  This was  the  state  of               things   at  the  time  of  Hyder’s   conquest               (exhibit  XIV), and the British Government  is               stated  to have continued the practice of  the               Mysore  Government in settling the  assessment               with  these kanomdars.  At the  annexation  of               Malabar in 1799 the Government disclaimed  any               desire  to act as the proprietor of the  soil,               and  directed  that rent should  be  collected               from  the immediate cultivators, Trimbak  Ranu               v. Naina Bhavani(1) and Secretary of State  v.               Vira  Rayan  (2)  thus limiting its  claim  to               revenue.   Further, in their despatch of  17th               December  1813 relating to the  settlement  of               Malabar the Directors observed that in Malabar               they  had no property in the land  to  confer,               with the exception of some forfeited  estates.               This may be regarded as an absolute disclaimer               by   the   Government  of  the  day   of   any               proprietary  right in the janmis’ estate,  and               is hardly consistent with the right of letting               in a tenant which is certainly an exercise  of               proprietary right." On  account  of the above decision,  the  Madras  Government reconsidered  the  matter  and  in  1896  the  Malabar  Land Registration Act (Act 3 of 1896) was enacted.  The object of that Act would be clear from its preamble which reads :               "WHEREAS Regulation XXVI of 1802 provides that               landed  property paying revenue to  Government               shall  he  registered by  the  Collector;  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

             whereas such landed property in certain  areas               in the Nilgiri district has in many cases  not               been   registered   in  the   names   of   the               proprietors   thereof;  and  whereas   it   is               desirable  for  the  security  of  the  public               revenue to provide a summary means whereby the               Collector  may ascertain such proprietors;  It               is hereby enacted as follows." According  to  section  13 of the above  Act,  every  person registered ,is proprietor of an estate shall be deemed to be the landholder in (1) 12 Bom.  H.C.R. 144 (2) I.L.R. 9 Mad. 175. 270 respect  of  such  estate within the  meaning  and  for  the purposes of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act II of 1864.  The janmam rights in the lands in dispute thus remained  intact. The  stand taken on behalf of the  petitioner-appellant,  as mentioned earlier, is that the janmam rights in the lands in dispute  were converted into ryotwari estate as a result  of resettlement  of  1926.  Government order No.  1902  Revenue dated November 1, 1926 was issued in this connection.   Para 3  of that order deals with the janmam estates and reads  as under :               "3.  JANMABHOGAM:-Paragraph 11 of the  Board’s               Proceedings-Lands have hitherto been described               as-               (a)   Government Janmam, i.e. lands which  are               held directly from the Government and on which               taram  assessment and janmabhogam are Paid  to               the Government and               (b)   private  janmam,  i.e. lands  which  are               held directly from the Government and on which               taram  assessment but not janmabhogam is  paid               to the Government.               These  two classes of land will  hereafter  be               referred   to  as  ’New  Holdings’  and   ’Old               Holdings’.               The Special Settlement Officer proposed-               (1)   to   raise   the   existing   rate    of               janmabhogam  of  8 annas an acre  on  all  so-               called  Government janmam land in  estates  to               Re.  1  an acre for  highly  developed  estate               crops;               (2)   to  retain  the existing rate  on  lands               cultivated with non-estate crops; and               (3)   to  reduce  it  to 4 annas  an  acre  on               undeveloped lands.               The Board supported the proposals (1) and  (3)               but  recommended an increase to Re. 1  in               the case of proposal (2).  The Government have               decided  to  apply the 18-3/4 per  cent  limit               imposed  in G.O. No. 924, Revenue, dated  18th               June,  1924,  to janmabhogam.   After  careful               consideration  the Government have decided  to               accept the Board’s proposal to amalgamate  the               two   items  of  land  revenue,  i.e.,   taram               assessment and so called ’Janinabhogam’  which               are   being   collected  on  all   so   called               Government   janmam   lands,  i.e.,   on   new               holdings, and in future to collect  assessment               on these lands at a               271               (Khanna, J.)               consolidated rate based upon the total of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

             rates  at  which these two items of  the  land               revenue  are  now being levied.   In  all  the               figures  quoted in the Appendix to this  order               concerning these lands the revised rate  given               is this consolidated rate." It  would  appear  from the above that  the  effect  of  the resettlement  of 1926 was to retain the janmam  estates  and not  to  abolish the same or to convert them  into  ryotwari estates.   There  was  merely  a  change  of   nomenclature. Government janmam lands were called the new holdings,  while private  janmam  lands  were called the  old  holdings.   In respect   of   janmabhogam  (Janmi’s  share)   relating   to Government janmam lands, the order further directed that the amount to be paid to the Government should include both  the taram  assessment and janmabhogam.  It is difficult, in  our opinion,  to infer from the above that janmam rights in  the lands  in  question  were extinguished  and  converted  into ryotwari estates.  The use of the word ’janmabhogam’ on  the contrary  indicates  that  the rights of  janmis  were  kept intact. It  has been argued on behalf of  the  petitioner-appellants that  the grant of a right of relinquishment to  janmis  had the  effect of obliterating the distinction  between  janmam estate and ryotwari estate.  The janmam rights, according to the  submission, were thus converted into  ryotwari  estate. In  this  connection we find that the Government  order  No. 1902  dated November 1, 1926 shows that question was  raised as  to, whether a janmi of private janmam land  could  claim exemption from assessment by leaving cultivable lands waste. The  Board of Revenue recommended that exemption should  not be granted unless the janmi pattadar relinquished his  whole right,   title  and  interest.   The  Government,   however, considered  that having regard to the practice of  exempting unoccupied janmam lands from assessment the janmi should not be  required to pay assessment on lands the  cultivation  of which  was  to  cease.  In 1896  a  system  was  introduced, according   to   which  a  janmi  could   give   notice   of relinquishment without giving up his janmam rights over  the land  and claim remission of assessment on the  relinquished land if it was not taken up for cultivation in the following year.   ’.he Board of Revenue in proceedings  dated  October 16, 1897 pointed out that this was in effect a reversion  to the  old  system of charging all cultivation  with  all  its attendant   evils  of  corruption,  loss  of   revenue   and unnecessary labour in inspection.  The matter was thereafter further  considered and the Board in its  proceedings  dated June  13, 1916 expressed the opinion that the existing  rule relating  to relinquishment of private lands  was  anomalous and proposed that no relinquishment of such lands should  be permitted unless the janmi surrendered also his janmam right and that until he relinquished such right, he should be res- ponsible to the Government for the payment of the assessment due 272 on such lands.  This proposal was accepted by the Government in  1917 and reiterated in 1919.  It would thus appear  that the relinquishment permissible in the case of janmi was of a somewhat  peculiar  nature  inasmuch as there  could  be  no relinquishment of janmam lands unless the janmi  surrendered also  his janam rights.  The above right of  relinquishment, in  our opinion, did not have the effect of  converting  the janmam rights in-the lands in dispute into ryotwari estate. It  is not disputed that apart from the lands  in  question, there are no other janmam estates in the State of Tamil Nadu (Madras).   If  the  janmam estates  in  question  had  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

converted   into  ryotwari  estates  as  a  result  of   the resettlement  of 1926, there would have arisen no  necessity to mention the janmam right in the State of Madras in clause (2) (a) (i) of article 3 1 A of the Constitution.  The  fact that in addition to the janmam right in the State of Kerala, the  janmam right in the State of Madras was also  mentioned in clause (2) (a) (i) of article 31 A as a result of  amend- ment, shows that the janmam rights in the lands in  question were assumed by the legislature to be in existence.  To hold that  the janmam rights in the lands in question  ceased  to exist  after the resettlement of 1926 would have the  effect of  rendering  the, words, wherein there is a  reference  to janmam right in the State of Madras in clause (2) (a) (i) of article 3 1 A, to be meaningless and without any purpose. Reference  has  been  made, on  behalf  of  the  petitioner- appellants to the Full Bench case of Sukapuram Sabhayogam v. State  of Kerala(1) wherein it was held that a person  would cease  to be Proprietor of a soil if he gets a right  or  is under an obligation to relinquish or abandon the land.  The, above  case related to the plains of Malabar, while  we  are concerned  with the hilly tracts of Gudalur taluk.   In  the cited case pattas and Adangal registers were Produced in the court  and  the State accepted the  authenticity of  those documents.  In the cases before us, no patta was produced by the  petitioner-appellants  either in the High Court  or  in this  Court.   In view of the above, we are of  the  opinion that  the facts of the Full Bench case are  distinguishable. In  any case, we are unable to subscribe to the  proposition that the right of relinquishment of janmam rights of a janmi would by itself convert janmam rights into ryotwari estate. Argument has also been advanced on behalf of the  petitioner appellants  that  so far as the forest areas in  the  janmam lands  in  question are concerned, they  do  not  constitute estate  unless  they  are  held  or  let  for  purposes   of agriculture   or   for  purposes   ancillary   thereto,   as contemplated by clause (2) (a) (iii) of article 31 A of  the Constitution.  This contention, in our opinion, is devoid of 1963 Kerala 101. (1) A.I.R 1663 Kerala 101 273 (Khanna, J.) force.  Sub-clause (a) of clause, (2) of article 31A  reads- as under "(2) In this article,-               (a)   the   expression  "estate"   shall,   in               relation  to  any local area,  have  the  same               meaning  as that expression or its  equivalent               has  in  the  existing law  relating  to  land               tenures  in force in that area and shall  also               include-               (i)   any  jagir,  inam  or  muafi  or   other               similar grant and in the States of Madras  and               Kerala, any janmam right;               (ii)  any land held under ryotwari settlement;               (iii) any  land  held or let for  purposes  of               agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto,               including  waste land, forest land,  land  for               pasture  or  sites  of  buildings  and   other               structures  occupied by cultivators  of  land,               agricultural   labourers         and   village               artisans;" Janmam lands are covered by clause (2) (a) (i) of article 31 A. Forest area, which is part of such janmam land would like the  remaining  janmam lands, constitute an estate,  and  it would  not  be  necessary in such a case to  show  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

forest  land is held or let for purposes of  agriculture  or for purposes ancillary thereto.  All lands which are part of a  janmam  estate  of a janmi in the States  of  Madras  and Kerala  would constitute estate as mentioned in  clause  (2) (a) (i) of article 31A of the Constitution.  As janmam lands fall  under clause (2) (a) (i), it is not essential to  show that  the  requirements  of clause (2)  (a)  (iii)  too  are satisfied  for such lands and it would make  no  difference whether forests are a part of the janmam lands. The next question which arises for consideration is  whether the  acquisition  of the lands in question is  for  agrarian reform.  It is well established that in order to invoke  the protection  of  article 3 1 A, it has to be shown  that  the acquisition  of  the  estate was with a  view  to  implement agrarian  reform.   The  said article is  confined  only  to agrarian reform and its provisions would apply only to a law made for the acquisition by the, State of any rights therein or for extinguishment or modification of such rights if such acquisition,  extinguishment  or modification  is  connected with  agrarian reform [see P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v.  Special Deputy Collector,, Madras & Anr.(1)]. (1)  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 614 at p. 622. 274 We have referred in the earlier part of this judgment to the various provisions of the Act, and it is manifest from their perusal that the object and general scheme of the Act is  to abolish intermediaries between the State and the  cultivator and  to help the actual cultivator by giving him the  status of  direct relationship between himself and the State.   The Act,  as such, in its broad outlines should be held to be  a measure  of  agrarian  reform  and  would  consequently   be protected  by  article 31A of the  Constitution.   The  said article provides that notwithstanding anything contained  in article  13,  no law providing for the  acquisition  by  the State  of  any  estate  or of  any  rights  therein  or  the extinguishment  or modification of any such right  shall  be deemed  to  be void on the ground that  it  is  inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights  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 article 31A shall not apply  thereto,  unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of  the President,  has received his assent.  The impugned  Act,  as stated  earlier,  received the assent of this  President  on December 6, 1969.  As the Act is protected by article 31A of the Constitution, it is immune from attack on the ground  of being  violative  of article 14, article 19 or  article  31. This fact would not, however, stand in the way of the  court examining  the  constitutional validity  of  any  particular provision of the Act It  has  been  submitted on behalf of  the  appellants  that whatever  might be the position in respect of  other  janmam lands,  so far as forests in janmam estates  are  concerned, the  acquisition of those forests is not in  furtherance  of the  objective  of  agrarian reform, and  as  such,  is  not protected by article 31A.  This submission, in our  opinion, is  well founded.  According to section 1 1 of the  Act,  no ryotwari  patta  would be issued in respect  of  forests  in janmam estates after those estates stand transferred to  the Government.   There is nothing in the Act to indicate as  to what  would be purPose for which the said forests  would  be used after the transfer of janman land containing forests to the Government.  All that section 16 states is that,  except where  the Government otherwise directs, no person  admitted by  a  janmi  into possession of any such  forest  shall  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

entitled  to any rights in or remain in possession  of  such land.   Sub-section  (2)  of  that  section  specifies   the directions which the     Government may issue while allowing any person to remain in  possession  of any such  land.   In the  absence of anything in the Act to show the purpose  for which  the  forests  are to be used by  the  Government,  it cannot be said that the acquisition of the forests in janmam land would be for a purpose related to agrarian reform.  The mere  fact  that  the  ownership  of  forests  would   stand transferred  to the State would not show that the object  of the transfer is to bring about agrarian reform.   Augmenting the 275 (Khanna,j.) resources  of  the  State by itself and in  the  absence  of anything more regarding the purpose of utilisation of  those resources,  cannot  be  held to be  a  measure  of  agrarian reform.  There is no material on the record to indicate that the transfer of forests from the janmi to the Government  is linked  in  any  way with a scheme  of  agrarian  reform  or betterment of village economy. Learned  Advocate General has referred to the case of  State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Anand Brahma Shah(1).  In that case all  the estates in a Pargana, including the  forests,  were acquired  by  the  State of Uttar  Pradesh  under  the  U.P. Zamindari  Abolition  and Land Reforms Act.   Objection  was taken  to the acquisition of forests on the ground  that  it was  not for the purpose of agrarian reform.  Repelling  the objection, this Court observed :               "Mr.   A.  K.  Sen  further  urges  that   the               acquisition  of  the estate was  not  for  the               purposes of agrarian reforms because  hundreds               of  square  miles of forest are sought  to  be               acquired.  But as we, have held that the  area               in  dispute is a grant in the nature of  Jagir               or inam, its acquisition like the  acquisition               of all Jagirs, inams, or similar grants, was a               necessary  step in the implementation  of  the               agrarian reforms and was clearly  contemplated               in article 31A." It  would appear from the above that the Court in that  case was  dealing with the acquisition of an estate which was  in the  nature  of a Jagir, inam or similar grant, and  it  was found that the said acquisition was a necessary ’Step in the implementation  of  agrarian reform.  We are, in  the  cases before  us, not concerned with Jagir, inam or  other  grant, and so far as the forests in question are concerned, it  has already been observed that the acquisition is not in any way related to agrarian reform.  As such, the respondent  State, in our view, cannot get much assistance from the cited case. We,  therefore, hold that the acquisition of the forests  on the janmam land is not protected by article 31A.  It has not been shown to us that if the protection of article 3 1 A  is taken  off,  the  acquisition of forests  can  otherwise  be justified.   We,  therefore,  are  of  the  view  that   the provisions of section 3 of the Act in so far as they  relate to the transfer of forests in the janmam estates in question are violative of the Constitution.  As such, we strike  down those   provisions  to  that  extent.   Invalidity  of   the provisions  relating to the transfer of forests  would  not, however, affect the validity of the other provisions of  the Act as the two are distinct and severable. (1)  [1967] 1 S.C. R. 3 62. 276 The  last  submission which has been made on behalf  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

petitioner-appellants  relates  to  section 17  of  the  Act regarding  the rights of plantation lessees.  It  is  stated that  it  would be open to the Government under  the  above provision  to terminate by notice the right of the  lessees. Such  a  termination of the lessee rights  under  the  above provision,  according to the submission made on  ,behalf  of the  petitioner-appellants,  would  be  violative  of  their rights under articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.  It is, in our opinion not necessary to deal with this aspect of the  matter.   It  is  admitted that  no  notice  about  the termination  of  the  lessee rights has  been  issued  under section  17 of the Act to any of the  petitioner-appellants. Indeed, the question of issuing such a notice can only arise after  the Act comes into force.  Even after the  Act  comes into  force, the Government would have to apply its mind  to the  question as to whether in its opinion it is  in  public interest to terminate the rights of the plantation  lessees. Till  such  time as such a notice is given,  the  matter  is purely  of  an  academic nature.   In  case  the  Government decides  not  to  terminate  the  lease  of  the  plantation lessees,  any discussion in the matter would be an  exercise in  futility.  If, on the contrary, action is taken  by  the Government under section 17 in respect of any lease of  land for  purposes  of the cultivation of  plantation  crop,  the aggrieved  party can approach the  court  for  appropriate relief. As  a result of the above, we uphold the vires of  the  Act, except  in one respect.  The provisions of section 3  in  so far  as  they relate to the transfer of  forests  in  janmam estates  to the Government are not protected by article  31A and  being violative ,of the Constitution are  struck  down. The  appeals and writ petition are disposed of  accordingly. The  parties, in the circumstances, are left to  bear  their own costs throughout. K.B.N.                 Appeals and petition allowed in part 277