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

PETITIONER: COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, TRICHUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VAMANA SHETTY AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/03/1966

BENCH:

ACT: The  Travancore-Cochin  Kanam Tenancy Act  (24  of  1955)-If applies lo Devaswoms. Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14-Act applicable only  to Cochin ,area of the Kerala State-If Act, ultra vires.

HEADNOTE: In   1910,  the  Ruler  of  Cochin  issued  a   Proclamation publishing  Ruler. -to secure the better  administration  of Devaswoms.   Clause  9 of the  Proclamation  authorised  the Diwan  of  the  State to make Rules to carry  out  the  main object  and scheme of the Proclamation.  In exercise of  the authority  conferred upon him, the Diwan published rules  on March  21,  1910 regulating the procedure in the  matter  of collection  Paattam, Michavaram, renewal fee and other  dues payable   to   Devaswoms.   These  Rules  applied   to   all tenants--ordinary   as   well  as  Kanam.   In   1955,   the legislature of the Part B State of Travancore Cochin enacted the  Travancare-Cochin  Kanam Tenancy  Act  conferring  full proprietary  rights on Kanam tenants in the Cochin  area  of the  State, subject only to the payment of Janimikaram as  a result of which, the Kanam-tenant was declared proprietor of the land and the right of the Jemni was only to receive  the Jamnikaram.   After  the enactment of the  Act,  the  Cochin Devaswom Board claimed to recover michavaram from the  Kanam tenants at the rates settled under the Rules made under  the Proclamation of 1910.  The Kanam-tenants petitioned the High Court for an appropriate writ quashing the notices of demand issued  by  the  Board,  and  the  High  Court  allowed  the petitions  and directed the Board not to proceed to  enforce the  notices.   In appeal to this Court,  it  was  contended that; (i) the Act applied only to land held under a contract of  tenancy and not to, Devaswom lands in respect  of  which the  michavaram  and  renewal fee, were  governed  by  Rules framed   under   the   Proclamation   (ii)   the   Act   was discriminatory and void. HELD  : (i) The Travancore-Cochin Kanom Tenancy Act  governs lands held from Devaswoms in the Cochin region of the  State Kerala. The  Scheme  of the Rules published by the Diwan  under  the Proclamation  was  that  an offer of  Pattah  on  the  terms specified in a ’tough draft was to be made to the tenant and after the terms were settled a final Pattah was to be  given and  the Kanam-tenant had to execute a Kychit  (undertaking) in  favour of the State.  Though the quantum  of  Michavaram and  the renewal fee was determined by-the Rules  under  the proclamation  the terms of the Pattah and  Kychit  evidenced the contract which determined the rights of the Kanam tenant and the Devaswom.  Therefore, the definitions of  ’holding’,

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

’michavaram’, ’Kanam’, ’Renewal fee’ and ’Janmikaram’ in  s. 2  of  the  Act applied to all lands  held  by  Kanamtenants whether they were Devaswom or non-Devasom.  Further,  though the Rules under the Proclamation are not expressly  repealed by  the  Act,  the  Act must be  deemed  to  have  partially superseded  the Proclamaton and the Rules in so far  as  the latter  related to the rights and obligations of the  Kanam- tenants   in   the   three  religions,  the   Act   is   not discriminatory.  Board. [732 B-D; 733 A-B] 725 (ii)The  Act  does  not infringe  the  guarantee  of  equal protection of the laws in Art. 14 of the Constitution. Though the Act only applies to the Cochin area of the  State of Kerala which consists of the three regions of Travancore, Cochin and Malabar, since there is a difference between  the relations governing the Jenmies and the  Kanam-tenants  in the three religions, the Act  is  not discriminatory. [734 C-E]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 11-18  of 1964. Appeals  from the judgment and orders dated November 7,  15, 1960  of  the Kerala High Court in Original  Petitions  Nos. 269, 284, 129, 250, 285 and 265 of 1957, and 102 and 269  of 1958 respectively. M.K. Nambyar, P. K. Krishnan Kutty Menon, B. Dutta,  J.B. Dadachanji,  0.  C.  Mathur and  Ravinder  Narain,  for  the appellant. Niren De, Additional Solicitor-General, A. G. Pudissery  and M.  R. K. Pillai for the respondent the State of Kerala  (In C. As.  Nos. 17 and 18 of 1964). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah,  J.  Two  questions fall to  be  determined  in  these appeals: (1)  Whether the Travancore-Cochin Kanam Tenancy Act  24  of 1955   governs   lands  held   from   Devaswoms   (religious institutions)  in the Cochin region of the State of  Kerala; and (2)Whether  the  Act  infringes  the  guarantee  of  equal protection of the laws and is on that account void? Kanam  tenure has a feudal origin.  Broadly stated it  is  a customary  transfer  which partakes of the  character  of  a mortgage  and  of a lease: it cannot be  redeemed  before  a fixed  number  of years-normally twelve-and  the  (Kanamdar) mortgagee-lessee  is entitled on redemption to  compensation for  improvements.   The  annual  payments  to  the  (Jenmi) mortgagor-lessor are regulated by what remains of the  fixed share of the produce after deducting interest.  If the  land is  not  redeemed on the expiry of 12 years, a  renewal  fee becomes  payable  to  the jenmi.  The  Cochin  State  Manual contains  the following description of the kanam  tenure  in the Cochin region: "The  Verumpattam (simple lease) becomes a kanam lease  when the janmi (landholder) acknowledges liability to pay a  lump sum  to the tenant on the redemption of his lease.   In  the old days his liability was created in most cases as a reward to  the  tenant for military or other services  rendered  by him,  but  in  more recent times,  kanam  encumbrances  were generally  created  by the janmi borrowing  money  from  his tenant to meet any extraordinary 726 expenditure by the conversion of the compensation payable to

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

Kuzhikanam  (lessee  who had a right to  make  improvements) holders into a kanam debt, or by the treatment of the amount deposited by the tenant for the punctual payment of rent and husband-like cultivation as a charge on the land.  In  kanam leases the net produce, after deducting the cost of seed and cultivation, is shared equally between the landlord and  the tenant,  and  from  the share of the former  the  tenant  is entitled to deduct interest on the kanam amount at five  per cent.   The  overplus, that is payable to  the  janmi  after making  these  deductions,  is  known  as  michavaram.   The kanamdar  is  entitled to the undisturbed enjoyment  of  the land for twelve years, but formerly it was for the life time of the demisor.  At the end of this period, the lease may be terminated  by  the janmi paying the kanam  amount  and  the value of the improvements effected by the tenant, or it  may be renewed on the latter paying a premium or renewal fee  to the landlord." After  the expulsion in 1762 of the Zamorin of  Calicut  who had  invaded  Cochin,  the  Ruler  of  Cochin  divested  the chieftains   who   had  supported  the  invader   of   their administrative  powers and confiscated their properties  and the Devaswoms under their management.  Managers of the major Devaswoms who had welcomed the invader were also deprived of their  powers,  and administration of a  large  majority  of Devaswoms  was assumed by the State.  Some  minor  Devaswoms were  later taken over by the State, because of  incompetent or  dishonest  management, and a scheme was devised  by  the State for maintenance of accounts of the Devaswom properties and  for  administration  of the affairs  of  the  Devaswoms according  to the existing usage.  The  Devaswoms,  revenues and  expenditure whereof were thus completely merged in  the general  revenues,  were  called  ’Incorporated’  Devaswoms. Some  time  after  the  incorporation  of  these  Devaswoms, management of two wellknown endowed temples was  surrendered to the Ruler, but administration of these Devaswoms was  not amalgamated  with  the "Incorporated"  Devaswoms  and  their expenditure  continued to be met from the receipts from  the temples.   Later the State assumed management of  some  more Devaswoms  and  treated them in the same manner as  the  two major temples.  These institutions which were later acquired were treated as independent of each other as well as of  the "Incorporated"  Devaswoms and were  called  "Unincorporated" Devaswoms. On  February 11, 1910, the Ruler of Cochin issued a  Procla- mation  publishing rules to secure better administration  of the  Incorporated and Unincorporated Devaswoms.   The  rules provided  that  the endowments attached to  and  the  income derived from 727 the  Devaswoms, whether "Incorporated"  or  Unincorporated", shall   be   constituted  into  a  Common  Trust   for   all administrative  purposes, that accounts shall be  maintained as  directed  and  that  the  surplus  after  defraying  the expenses shall be appropriated in the manner prescribed.  By cl.  9 the Diwan of the State was given authority  to  frame rules for carrying out the main object and the scheme of the Proclamation, and the rules so framed were to have the  same force and validity as the Proclamation, and were to regulate the  renewals, prescribe the mode of collection of rents  as well  as rates of rents payable by tenants, and  to  provide for  such  other matters as may be  necessary  for  securing efficiency  and  uniformity  in the  administration  of  the landed properties belonging to all Devaswoms.  The Diwan  of Cochin  promulgated  on  March 21,  1910,  rules  regulating procedure  in the matter of collecting Paattam,  Michavaram,

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

renewal  fee and other dues payable to Devaswoms  and  other religious institutions.  The rules provided for  maintenance of public registers in respect of landed properties, payment of  rent  due  by the tenants to the  Devaswom  Officer  and prescribed methods for recovery of arrears by  sequestration of property either temporarily or permanently.  These  rules applied to all tenants-ordinary and kanam. On  November 8, 1910, some more rules were published by  the Diwan.  These rules were designed to regulate the principles and  procedure to be observed in fixing the rates of  rents, renewal   of  holdings  and  for  securing  efficiency   and uniformity in the administration of landed properties of all the  Devaswoms.  By cl. 5 the principles to be  followed  in the  classification  of  lands and  for  fixing  rents  were prescribed.  It was directed by cl. 8 that the lands shall.’ be carefully examined and classified with reference to soil, situation,    productiveness,   drainage   and    irrigation facilities and other relevant considerations.  By cl. 13 all Devaswom  lands  held under kanam, and other  tenures  of  a cognate  nature  were  to  be charged  full  rent  fixed  in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Rules,, but from the full rent so charged, deductions were to be made on account of interest on kanam etc.  By cl. 16 it was provided that  holdings  of land under kanam and other  tenures  were subject  to, renewal periodically once in fifteen years,  at each of which occasion. the tenant was liable to pay renewal fee  calculated  at  the customaryrates  revailing  in  each Devaswom. On  July  12 ,1911, supplementary rules  were  published  to regulate the administration of lands belonging to  Devaswoms and for maintenance of accounts connected therewith.  By cl. 3 rights and obligations under a Pattah to be issued by  the Devaswom  were  prescribed and these obligations  under  the Pattah  were to be embodied in a kychit (undertaking)  which each Devaswom tenant receiving a Pattah had to execute. 728 On October 24, 1914, the Maharaja of Cochin Promulgated  the Cochin  Tenancy  Act II of 1090 M. E. (1914 A.D.).  The  ex- pression "Kanam tenant" was defined by s. 2 (c) as meaning a tenant who holds lands on payment of consideration in  money or  in  kind or partly in money and partly in  kind  to  the landlord for his holding, and on a demise made or renewed by a  landlord on a tenure that is subject to renewal  after  a fixed period on payment of a renewal fee.  "Michavaram"  was defined  in s. 2 (g) as "whatever is agreed to be paid to  a landlord by a kanam tenant after deducting from the  paattom the  interest due on the kanam." Provision was made  in  Ch. III  for renewals of kanam holdings and ejectment  of  kanam tenants and for other incidental matters. On  May 29, 1949 the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin  States ,entered  into  a covenant for the formation of  the  United State  of Travancore-Cochin.  On January 26, 1950 the  State of  Travancore  Cochin became a Part ’B’  State  within  the Union of India.  By s. 62 of Act 15 of 1950 effect was given to  Art.  8-D of the covenant and it was provided  that  the administration   of  "Incorporated"   and   "Unincorporated" Devaswoms and Hindu religious institutions which were  under the  management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior  to the  first day of July, 1949, and all their  properties  and funds and the estates and all institutions under the manage- ment of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest in the Cochin Devaswom Board.  By s. 113 (2) the provisions of  the Devaswom Proclamation dated February 11, 1910 and the  rules framed thereunder in respect of the procedure to be  adopted and the mode of recovery of pattom, michavaram, renewal fees

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

and  other  dues  were, it was declared,  to  apply  mutatis mutandis  to the procedure and mode of recovery of  paattom, michavaram   renewal  fees  and  other  dues   relating   to "Incorporated" and "Unincorporated" Devaswoms. The  Legislature of the State of  Travancore-Cochin  enacted Act  24 of 1955 called the Travancore-Cochin  Kanam  Tenancy Act   24  of  1955  with  the  object  of  conferring   full proprietary  rights  on  kanam tenants in  the  Cochin  area subject only to the payment of janmikaram and to provide for the settlement, collection and payment of janmikaram and for matters incidental thereto.  By s. 3(1) of the Act it was provided : "From and after the commencement of this Act the Jenmi shall not  have  any  right, claim or interest in any  land  in  a holding  except the right to receive the jenmikaram  thereon and the kanam-tenant shall be deemed to be the owner of  the land subject only to the payment of the jenmikaram. Explanation (1)................................. 729 Explanation (2)....................... Explanation (3)..................... The  jenmi’s right as well as the kanam tenant’s right  were declared  Heritable  and  transferable  by  sale,  gift   or otherwise.   By s. 5, Jenmikaram was made a first charge  on land.  Under the customary kanam-tenure the jenmi was either a  lessor or a mortgagor having rights of ownership  in  the land,   but  by  Act  24  of  1955  the   relationship   was fundamentally altered; subject to payment of jenmikaram  the kanam-tenant  was declared a proprietor of the land and  the right of the jenmi was only to receive the jenmikaram. After  the enactment of Act 24 of 1955 the  Cochin  Devaswom Board (which was constituted under s. 62 of the  Travancore- Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 15 of 1950)  claimed to  recover Michavaram at the rates settled under the  rules made  in  exercise of the power conferred by cl.  9  of  the Proclamation   of   1910.    The   kanam-tenants   thereupon petitioned   the  High  Court  of  Kerala  for  a  writ   of certiorari,  prohibition or other writ quashing the  notices of  demand issued by the Board and all proceedings taken  by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner.  It was claimed by  the kanamtenants  that  on  expressing their  readiness  to  pay jenmikaram  settled under the rules framed under Act  24  of 1955,  they  were  entitled  to  hold  the  lands  in  their occupation as proprietors and the Board could not demand any amount in excess of the jenmikaram.  The Board presented  in their  turn two petitions praying for the issue of writs  of certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing notices issued by  the Jenmikaram Settlement Officers under the  provisions of the Kanam Tenancy Act 24 of 1955 in respect of the  lands owned  by  "Unincorporated"  Devaswoms and  for  a  writ  of prohibition  against  those  Officers  from  enforcing   the provisions  of  Act  24  of’  1955  and  the  rules   framed thereunder.  The Board claimed that the provisions of Act 24 of 1955 did not apply to land held by its kanam tenants, and that in any event the proceedings taken by the.   Jenmikaram Settlement Officer for settlement of the jenmikaram  payable by  its kanam-tenants and the rules framed thereunder  "were illegal and ultra vires of their powers." The  High Court of Kerala held that by the enactment of  Act 24 of 1955, the Board’s fundamental rights under Art.  31(2) or under Art. 14 of the Constitution were not infringed, and that  the  Board could not demand payment of  Michavaram  as regulated   by  the  Proclamation  of  1910,   because   the provisions  settling the Michavaram under  the  Proclamation were  superseded  by  Act  24  of  1955.   The  High   Court

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

accordingly  rejected the petitions filed by the  Board  and directed  the  Board in the petitions filed by  the  tenants "not  to proceed further under the notices  issued"  against the kanam-tenants. 730 The two questions raised in the appeals may now be consider- ed.  Counsel for the appellants says that whereas under  the Proclamation  of 1910 and the rules framed thereunder  there is a statutory fixation of Michavaram and the renewal fee in respect of the lands held by kanam-tenants belonging to  the Devaswoms which later came to be vested in the Board, Act 24 of  1955 only applies’ to kanam-tenants holding lands  under contracts  with jenmis.  The relation between the jenmi  and the kanam-tenant in respect of lands Devaswom "Incorporated" or  "Unincorporated" is, it is urged, governed by the  terms of the Proclamation and the rules framed thereunder relating to fixation of Michavaram and renewal fee, whereas Act 24 of 1955  deals with liability to pay jenmikaram in  respect  of land  held  under  an engagement by a  kanam-tenant  with  a jenmi.   In support of this contention, reliance  is  placed primarily  upon  the  definitions  in s. 2  of  the  Act  of "Jenmikaram", "Jenmi" -"Renewal fee" "Holding", "Kanam"  and "Michavaram.  The ,expression "Jenmikaram" was defined by S. 2 (13) as the amount "payable in respect of that holding  or land under the provisions of this Act by the kanam-tenant to the  jenmi every year in lieu of all claims of the jenmi  in respect  of the holding, or land and shall be the sum  total of the michavaram and the fractional fee"; "kanamtenant" was defined  by  s. 2 (12) as a person who holds land  on  kanam tenure;  and a "Jenmi" was defined in s. 2 (3) as "a  person immediately under whom a kanam-tenant holds".  "Renewal fee" was defined in S. 2 (I 1) as fee or fees payable by a kanam- tenant  to his jenmi under the contract of tenancy  for  the renewal  of  the legal relationship under which  the  kanam- tenant has been holding any land.  "Holding" was defined  by s. 2 (2) as a parcel or parcels of land held under a  single engagement  by  a tenant as a kanam from a jenmi  and  shall include any portion of a holding as above defined which  the jenmi  and kanam-tenant have agreed to treat as  a  separate holding.   By  s.  2 (4) "Kanam" meant  a  demise  with  the incidents specified therein.  "Michavaram" was defined by S. 2  (6)  as meaning the balance of money or produce  or  both payable  periodically under the contract of tenancy  to  the jenmi  after deducting from the pattom the interest  due  on the kanam amount and purankadam, if any.  Relying upon these definitions  it was urged that the Act applies only to  land held under a contract of tenancy and not to land in  respect of which the Michavaram and the renewal fee are governed  by rules framed under the Proclamation of 1910.  It was claimed that  the  definitions  in  the  Act  disclosed  clearly  an intention  not  to interfere with the relation  between  the kanam-tenants  and jenmis in respect of the Devaswom  lands- "Incorporated"   or  "Unincorporated".   This  argument   in substance  canvasses  the plea that  the  relations  between kanamtenants  of  the Devaswom lands were  not  governed  by contracts. This  plea  is, in our judgment, without substance.   It  is true  that  by Part II of the Rules dated November  8,  1910 ’Issued in 731 exercise  of the powers under cl. 9 of the  Proclamation  of 1910  rules  were  framed for  fixation  and  collection  of "michavaram",  "paattom"  renewal  fee  and  other  dues  in respect   of   Sirkar   Devaswoms   and   other    religious institutions.   By cl. 13 of the Rules, rent in  respect  of

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

all  Devaswom lands held under kanam tenure was to be  fixed in accordance with the provisions of Part 11 of those  Rules and  the kanam-leases are to be renewed every fifteen  years as  provided  in  cl. 16.  By cl. 25 it  was  provided  that before  the introduction of the new rates of rent,  a  rough Pattah will be furnished to each tenant, showing the details of his holding, rent to be paid, the kanam amount,  interest deductions  and renewal fees fixed on the kanam holding,  if any, Provision was then made in cls. 27, 28 & 29 for lodging objections  relating to the draft Pattah  and  determination thereof, and for the issue of a final Pattah in Form C under the  signature of the Devaswom Commissioner setting out  the particulars of his holding, the rent due from him in kind as well  as in money including miscellaneous items,  the  kanam amounts, interest deductions and renewal fees on kanam lands held by him and the number of instalments in which the  rent was payable.  Clause 29 further provided that the Pattah  so issued  shall be considered to be sufficient  acknowledgment by  the Government of the tenant’s right to occupy the  land or  lands  comprised  in  his  holding  on  the   conditions specified in the Pattah and that the tenant’s obligations on these  conditions  shall  be  embodied  in  a  corresponding kychit.   By  paragraph-s of the supplementary  rules  dated July   17,  1911  which  were  intended  to   regulate   the administration  of lands belonging to Sirkar  Devaswoms  the rights and obligations under the Pattah were prescribed, and by sub-paragraph (f) of that paragraph it was provided  that the obligations under a Pattah shall be embodied in a kychit in  Form Appendix II which each Devaswom tenant receiving  a Pattah  shall  execute.   The Form in  Appendix  II  was  as follows : "Kychit  executed by Pattadar No  of Desam   Village   Taluk relating  to  Devaswom properties in group of  Cochin  State before the Devaswom Katcherry (Office). granted  from  the  Devaswam relating to  properties  in  my possession and which are Devaswam Janmam lands, the  Paattam Michavaram (annual rent) Puravka (customary dues) etc.  will be paid by me after necessary cleaning the quantity of paddy               according  to  kist mentioned  in  the  Patta.               After payment in kind and cash I shall take  a               receipt for the same.  In case of default  for               any   instalment,  I  shall  pay  the   proper               interest for such sum.  In the alternative  if               I cause any loss to the Devaswam agree to  the               realization of such losses caused to Devaswam 732 by  taking appropriate legal steps by the  Devaswam  against me.  Besides I am bound by all the orders of the Dewan  from time  to  time  made under the Royal  Proclamation  of  29th Makaram 1085 (11-2-1910)." The  scheme  of  the Rules clearly was that an  offer  of  a Pattah  on  the terms specified in a rough draft was  to  be made  to  a  tenant.   The  tenant  was  entitled  to  raise objections  thereto and after the objections were heard  and disposed  of, a final Pattah was to be given to  the  tenant and the kanam-tenant had to execute the kychit in favour  of the State.  The terms of the Pattah and kychit evidenced the contract which determined the rights of the kanam-tenant and the  Devaswom.   It is true that under the  Proclamation  of 1910  and  the  rules  framed  thereunder,  the  quantum  of Michavarwn and renewal fee was determined in accordance with the  rules.  But the kychit constituted an  engagement  with the Board, and land held by a kanam-tenant under the  Kychit was  a  holding within the meaning of Act 24 of  1955.   The Pattah constituted a demise within the meaning of sub-s. (4)

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

of  s. 2, Michavaram defined in s. 2 (6) was deemed  payable under  the contract of tenancy, and renewal fee under  s.  2 (11)  was  payable under that contract of tenancy.   We  are therefore  of  the view that the definitions  of  ’holding’, ’Michavaram’, ’Kanam’, ’Renewal fee’ and ‘Jenmikaram’ in  s. 2  of  Act 24 of 1955 applied to all lands  held  by  kanam- tenants  whether  the  lands  held  were  Devaswom  or  non- Devaswom. It  is  true  that the Proclamation of 1910  and  the  rules framed  thereunder have not been repealed by the  Act.   But they  could not be repealed for reasons which  are  obvious. The  machinery  for  grant of Pattah and  the  execution  of kychit was prescribed under those rules.  The repeal of  the Proclamation  and  the rules framed  thereunder  would  have necessitated  a fresh enactment under which the terms  which were  to  govern  the relations between the  jenmi  and  the kanam-tenant   were   determined.   Again  repeal   of   the Proclamation would have necessitated re-enactment of cls. 2 &    3 thereof which set up a Common Trust and prescribed  the management through the Devaswom Department.  Again the rules framed  by the Diwan set up machinery for fixation  of  rent and other dues and for recovery thereof in respect of  lands held  on kanam and other tenures as well.  No inference  may therefore  arise from the notifications issued by the  State after enactment of Act 24 of 1955 in pursuance of the  rules and  Proclamation of 1910 that the Act was not  intended  to apply  to kanam-tenants holding lands from  Devaswoms.   The notifications  dated  February  4, 1958, and  July  1,  1958 issued  by the Kerala Government in exercise of  the  powers conferred  by cl. 9 of the Cochin Proclamation  amended  the supplementary  rules regulating the administration of  lands belonging  to Sirkar Devaswoms and thereby  enabled  tenants from  whom  paddy  demand was due  according  to  Pattah  to deliver the 733 same  in  kind or pay the value of paddy calculated  at  the average  nirak  rate  published  by  the  Government.    The notifications  are  in  general terms  and  could  apply  to tenures other than those governed by the statute enacted  by the  Legislature.  The Act must be deemed therefore to  have partially  superseded the Proclamation and the rules  framed in  so far as the latter related to the rights  and  obliga- tions  of the kanam-tenants in respect of land held by  them from the Devaswom Board. The plea about infringement of the fundamental rights of the Devaswom  Board by the enactment of Act 24 of 1955 needs  no elaborate discussion.  In the High Court the plea was sought to  be sustained on the grounds that the Act  infringed  the fundamental rights under Art. 14 and also under Art. 31  (2) of  the  Constitution.   Before  us  no  argument  has  been advanced  in support of the plea that the Act infringes  the right under Art. 31 (2) and nothing more need be said  about it.   Before  dealing with the plea of infringement  of  the right of equality before the law, it is necessary to set out the case of the Board as pleaded in their affidavit in reply to  the  tenants’  claim.  In  paragraphs  of  the  counter- affidavit  filed.  by  the Board in reply  to  the  tenants’ petition, it was submitted "The  Jenmies of the erstwhile Cochin area where  alone  the Kanom Tenancy Act has been made applicable have been  denied equality before the law and equal protection of the laws  in enacting   the   Kanom   Tenancy   Act.    The   Legislature discriminates  the  Jenmies of the Cochin  area  as  against Jenmies  similarly  situated in the Travancore  and  Malabar areas of the State.  The classification made is unreasonable

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

and there is no reasonable nexus between the  classification and.  the  object sought to be achieved by the Act.   It  is therefore  submitted  that the Kanom Tenancy  Act,  XXIV  of 1955, offends Article 14 of the Constitution." In petition No. 102 of 1958 filed by the Devaswom Board,  by paragraph 9 (e) it was submitted "The   Kanom   Tenancy  Act  offends  Article  14   of   the Constitution  in  that the Jenmies in the  erstwhile  Cochin State  have  been denied equality before law and  the  equal protection of the laws.  It discriminates the Jenmies of the Cochin  area  as against the Jenmies similarly  situated  in Travancore  and  Malabar  areas of the  Kerala  State.   The grouping  of  Kanom tenants in Cochin area for  purposes  of legislation is not based on any reasonable classification or conceived in the interests of the general public." The  argument raised on behalf of the Board in the two  sets of petitions is that the Act only applies to the Cochin area and does 734 not  apply  to the whole State of Kerala which  consists  of three  regions, viz., Travancore, Cochin and Malabar and  is on  that account discriminatory.  The argument assumes  that the  principal  incidents of the kanam-tenure in  the  three regions of the Kerala State are identical and that when  Act 24  of  1955  was enacted, without  any  rational  ground  a distinction was made between the Jenmies in respect of kanam lands  in  the Travancore and Cochin regions and  after  the reorganisation of the State in 1936 that discrimination  was perpetuated  even  qua the Jenmies in  the  Malabar  region. This assumption on the finding recorded by the High Court on an extensive review of the legislative history in the  three regions  has  no basis in fact.  The  relation  between  the Jenmies  and the kanamtenants in the Travancore  region  was governed by the Jenmi and Kudiyan Regulation No. 5 of  1071, as  later  modified  by  Regulation No.  12  of  1108.   The incidents  of  the kanam-tenure in  Travancore  region  were substantially  different  from those prevailing  in  Cochin. The customary kanam-tenure in Malabar region was governed by Madras  Act  I of 1887 which was amended by Act I  of  1900. Later the Madras Legislature passed the Malabar Tenancy  Act 14  of  1930 which was amended by Acts 33 of 1951 and  7  of 1954.  From a review of the provisions of the Act, the  High Court  observed that no renewal fee could be levied  from  a kanamdar in the Malabar region and that fixity of tenure was conferred  by s. 25 of Act 14 of 1930, that whereas  in  the Malabar  region no renewal fee was required to be  paid,  in the  Travancore region fractional fee was ,charged and  that in  the Cochin region a renewal fee calculated under  s.  28 was  payable  under the Cochin Tenancy Act 15 of  1938.  The Jenmies  in the three regions were therefore  not  similarly circumstanced.   If the Legislature with a view to  agrarian reform selected the Cochin region and enacted an Act limited to  that region, it could not be said, merely on the  ground that it applies only to the Cochin region, that it is  based on no intelligible differentia.  The Board only pleaded that by the enactment of the Act there was discrimination between Jenmies  in the three regions.  In the absence ,of any  plea and  proof about relative fertility of the soil,  nature  of crops raised, extent of holdings, historical development  of the  kanam-tenure and the terms on which  the  kanam-tenants hold land from the Jenmies, it would be impossible to decide whether  the  Jenmies  in the three  regions  are  similarly Circumstanced and that the Legislature has made an  unlawful discrimination by providing a different tariff of  payments. A person relying upon the plea ofunlawful   discrimination

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

which infringes a guarantee of equalitybefore  the  law  or equal protection of the laws must set out withsufficient particulars  his  plea  showing  that  between  the  persons similarly circumstanced, discrimination has been made  which is founded on no intelligible differentia.  If the  claimant for  relief establishes similarity between persons  who  are subjected  to a differential treatment it may lie  upon  the State to establish 735 that  the  differentiation  is based on  a  rational  object sought  to be achieved by the Legislature.  In  the  present case   the  pleading  of  the  Devaswom  Board   is   wholly insufficient to discharge the onus of proving similarity  of status  between  the Jenmies in the three regions,  and  the findings recorded by the High Court which are not challenged before  us clearly show that there is a  difference  between the relations governing the Jenmies and the kanam-tenants in the  three  regions.   The plea about  infringement  of  the fundamental  right  under Art 14 of  the  Constitution  must therefore fail. The  appeals are dismissed with costs.  One hearing  fee  in all the appeals. Appeals dismissed. 736