http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: THE COCHIN DEVASWAM BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CAPTAIN E.M. GEORGE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/01/1995

BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BHARUCHA S.P. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (2) 387        JT 1995 (1)   663  1995 SCALE  (1)200

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1.   These  are connected cases.  The plaintiff in O.S.  No. 118 of 1958, Sub Court, Ernakulam -- Cochin Devaswom  Board, Trichur  (hereinafter referred to as the ’Board’) -- is  the appellant  in C.A. No.2312 of 1977.  The respondents in  the said apppeal, defendants 2,4,6,1 1, legal representatives of the  8th defendant and the legal representative of  the  1st defendant in the suit am the "tenants" of the suit property. They  are the petitioners in S.L.P. No. A906 of  1978.   The Board  appellant in C.A. No. 2312 of 1977  is the respondent in S.L.P.No.4906 of 1978. 2.   The  suit, O.S. No. 118/58, Sub Court, Emakulam  had  a chequred  career.  It was filed by the  Board,  representing one  of its institutions or units  the  Ayyampilly  Devaswom (hereinafter  called ’Devaswom") against the  tenants  under different  demises -- Kanam, verumpatton and other  demises. The Board prayed for a declaration that it has the right  of fishing  in and over the plaint lands, nearly 220  acres  in extent,  out of which 107 acres are paddy lands.  The  Board claimed right of prawn fishing in the plaint schedule  lands and  also  stated that the tenants-defendants  had  no  such fishing  right and prayed for an injunction to restrain  the defendants  from interfering with the Devaswom’s right.   It was  claimed  that  the Devaswom had resewed  the  right  of fishing at the time of granting the demise and alternatively that it was entitled to carry on prawn fishing as a right of easement. 3.   The  trial court found against the plaintiff.  But  the lower  appellate court found that the Devaswom was  entitled to exercise the right of fishing, on the basis of a right of easement.   The  matter  came up before the  High  Court  of Kerala  in  S.A.  No.  1208  of  1964.   By  judgment  dated 10.4.1970,  the  High  Court  held that  the  grant  by  the Devaswom did not confer the right on the tenants to carry on the  fishing operations in the plaint lands.  The  plaintiff

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

was held entitled to carry on the fishing operations in  the plaint  lands  as  well as in the thodus.   The  High  Court further  found that in view, of the Kanam.  Tenancy  Ant  of 1955 and the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963, the  plaintiff had been deprived of its right of fishing and that the  same had  become vested in the tenants.  The matter was  remitted to  the  trial court for an investigation  and  for  passing appropriate  orders, After the remit, the trial  court  held that  the plaintiffs claim for fishing right in  respect  of lands  granted  on Kanam demise was lost by  reason  of  the provisions  of Be Kanam Tenancy Act of 1955, and had  vested in the Kanani tenants.  But trial court held that the  right remained unaffected in respect of lands held on 666 verumpattom and other demises.  The Devaswom filed an appeal to  the lower appellate court in respect of the Kanam  lands and  the  defendants  filed  an appeal  in  respect  of  the verumpattom  lands.  The Devaswom’s appeal (A.B.  No.221  of 1972) was allowed and the defendants Appeal (A.S. No. 248 of 1972) was dismissed.  Against the aforesaid judgment and de- crees,  the defendants-tenants filed S.A. No. 1163  of  1973 before  the High Court of Kerala.  The High Court held  that in view of section 3 of the Kanam Tenancy Act, the Board was divested  of the right to carry on prawn fishing, since  the right  vested  in the Kanam tenants.  It was  further  found that  with regard to verumpattom tenants and  tenants  under other  demises the rights of the landlord stood  transferred to  the  tenant  under the provisions  of  the  Kerala  land Reforms  Act It was finally concluded that the Devaswom  was divested  of  its right of fishing and that the  same  stood vested  in  the  tenants-- both kanam  tenants  as  well  as tenants under the verumpattom and other demises.  The second appeal filed by the tenants was allowed and the  plaintiff’s suit seeking a declaration and injunction was dismissed.   A direction  was  given to the trial court  to  apportion  the collections  deposited by the receiver and  for  appropriate disbursement  thereof  for  parties  entitled  to  the  said amount.  The plaintiff in the suit the Cochin Devaswom Board filed  C.M.P.No.  6759  of  1977  and  prayed  for   certain clarifications  in  the  aforesaid  judgment  delivered   in S.A.No.1  163  of 1971 This petition  was  considered  along ,with C.M.P.No.9751 of 1977, a similar application filed  by the  tenants/defendants.   The  above  Civil   Miscellaneous Petitions were disposed of in the following manner by  under dated  3rd  August, 1977.  In C.M.T. No. 6759 of  1977,  the decree was modified in the following manner:-               "We  would therefore allow the Second  Appeal,               and  modify  the decree and  judgment  of  the               lower appellate court to this extent, that the               plaintiff’s right of fishing in respect of the               kanam  lands  will stand extinguished  on  and               from   1.4.1956,   and  in  respect   of   the               verumpattom  lands and other cognate  tenures,               on  and  from  1.1.1970;  and  that  in  other               respects  the  decree of the  lower  appellate               court  will stand.  There will be no order  as               to costs." In  C.M.P. No. 9751 of 1977, regarding the apportionment  of the  collections in deposit in court, directions were  given to the following effect:               "This will be done in appropriate  proceedings               in   the  trial  court  for   directions   for               disbursement  of the collections made  by  the               Receiver during the time he functioned, and by               those   responsible,   in   respect   of   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

             collections thereafter." 4.   The  Cochin Devaswom Board (Plaintiff in the suit)  has filed C.A. No. 2312 of 1977 against the judgment of the High Court in S.A. No. 1163 of 1973 dated 7.2.1977 and subsequent clarification  order  dated 3.8.1977 in  C.M.P.  No.6759  of 1977.  The defendants/tenants have filed S.L.P. No. 4906  of 1978  against the judgment in S.A. No. 1163 of 1973 and  the order  passed in C.M.P. No. 9751 of 1977 dated  3rd  August, 1977.  In effect, the plaintiff -- jenmi/landlord as well as the  defendants tenants have filed the Civil Appeal and  the Special  Leave  Petition against the judgment  of  the  High Court  dated 7.2.1977 rendered in S.A. No. 1163 of 1973  and the orders passed in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions dated 3.8.1977. Both the matters were heard together. 5.   We heard Shri k. Sukumaran, se- 667 nior  counsel,  who  appeared  for the  Board  and  Shri  G. Viswanatha  lyer  and  Shri  P.  Subramanian  Potti,  senior advocates, who appeared for the tenants. 6.Counsel for the Board raised the following three points :-               (i)   Fishing  rights do not appertain to  ag-               ricultural   operations  and  so   cannot   be               regarded as a measure of agrarian reform.   It               cannot have the protection of Article 31 A  of               the  Constitution.  The decision of  the  High               Court  that the Kanam tenants are entitled  to               fishing rights is illegal, since the provision               in  the  Kanam Tenancy  Act,  conferring  such               fishing  rights on the kanam tenants is  ultra               vires  and violative of Article 19(1) (f)  and               cannot have the, protection of Article 31 A of               the  Constitution.  The Kerala High  Court  in               the Full Bench decision reported in  Narayanan               Nair  v. State of Kerala (1970 K.L.T. 659)  at               page  700  (paragraph 82) has  struck  down  a               similar  provision relating to "varamdars"  in               the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and by  par-               ity of reasoning, the similar provision in the               Kanam  Tenancy Act should be held to be  ultra               vires  and it should have been held  that  the               fishing  right  did  not  vest  in  the  Kanam               tenants.               (ii)  In  view of section 66(9) of the  Kerala               Land  Reforms Act, the right of  the  Devaswom               Board  in the suit lands will vest  under  the               same Act in the Government only after the ’is-               sue of a notification’ specified therein.  The               rights of the landlord will stand  transferred               to  the tenant or will vest in the  Government               only  after the determination of  the  annuity               and  on issuing a notification as provided  in               section  66(9) of the Act. This has  not  been               complied  with  and  so  the  rights  of   the               Devaswolm Board regarding varam lands did  not               vest  in  the Government or  in  the  tenants.               Sections 72(1), 72N, 69, 56, 65, 66(9) and  68               of  the Kerala Land Reforms Act were  referred               to in this connection.               (iii) It is only under section 50-A(2) of  the               Kerala Land Reforms Act, the fishing right  in               the nilam exercised by the landlord ceased  to               exist  and  vested in the  Government  or  the               varamdars  (tenants).  Section 50-A(2) of  the               Act  was struck down by the Full Bench of  the               Kerala High Court in the decision reported  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             Narayanan  Nair  vs.  State  of  Kerala  (1970               K.L.T. 659) at p.700 (para 82).  It is only by               the Constitution (Twenty ninth Amendment) Act,               1972   which  received  the  assent   of   the               President on 9.7.1972, the Kerala Land Reforms               (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Kerala Act 35 of  1969)               which inserted section 50A in the Kerala  Land               Reforms   Act  was  included  in   the   Ninth               Scheduled  to the Constitution of India.   So,                             till  9.7.1972 it is the Devaswom Board  which               is  entitled  to the profits relating  to  the               fishing  rights in the nilam.   The  varamdars               will  be  entitled to the  said  profits  only               thereafter.   The  High Court failed  to  give               specific  direction in this behalf  even  when               passing the latter order dated 3.8.1977. 7.   On behalf of the tenants, the only plea made   in   the S.L.P. was that the tenants   are   entitled  to  carry   on fishing operations and to do acts incidental thereto in  the canals  and thodus abutting their properties.   The  tenants have got rights over the entire suit lands inclusive of  the bunds  and  canals and it should have been so found  by  the High Court.  The High Court erred 668 in not adjudicating such valuable rights of the tenants. 8.   We are of the view that there is no merit in the  Civil Appeal  as also in the Special Leave Petition.  We will  now decide the various points raised before us in seriatim. 9.   The  first point raised was that for the reasons  given by the High Court in Narayanan Nair’s case (supra) to strike down  section 51A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act  it  should have  been  held that the rights of the  tenants  under  the Kanam  Tenancy Act will not cover the fishing rights in  the nilam  and  to  the extent the Kanam  Tenancy  Act  of  1955 provides  otherwise, it is ultra vires.  This point was  not urged before the High Court.  There is no discussion of  the matter in the judgment either.  That apart, in a case  where the  vires  of a legislation is challenged, the State  is  a necessary  party.  The State of Kerala is not made a  party, either  in the suit or in any further proceeding.  In  these state of affairs, we hold that Cochin Devaswom Board is  not entitled to raise this plea at this belated stage. 10.  The second point urged is regarding the vesting of  the right, title and interest of the Devaswom in respect of  the suit  land  in the Government or in  the  tenants.   Section 66(9)  of  the  Kerala Land Reforms  Act  was  pressed  into service  to contend that it is only after the  determination of  the annuity and issue of a notification as specified  in section  66(9) of the Act, the right, title and interest  of the Devaswom in respect of the suit lands will vest with the Government.   In  this  connection  sections  65(1),  66(9), 72(2), 72K and 72N (1)   (a)  (b), (1A),(1B) and  72N(2)  of the  Kerala  Land  Reforms Act which  are  relevant  may  be quoted: "65.   Special Provisions relating to religious,  charitable or  educational  institutions  of a  public  nature  --  (1) Notwithstanding  anything  contained in section  53  to  64, where  in  respect  of  a  holding  the  landowner  or   the intermediary  is  a  religious,  charitable  or  educational institution  of  a public nature, such institution  may,  by application  to the Land Board, choose whether the  right  , title  and  interest of the institution in  respect  of  the holding should be vested in- the Government in consideration of the payment of an annuity in perpetuity by the Government or whether it should be paid such annuity by the  Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

instead  of purchase price in case the holding is  purchased by the cultivating tenants under the provisions of this Act: Provided  that no such application shall be  entertained  by the Land Board on or after the date notified by the  Govern- ment under Section 72.                 xxxxx          xxxxx         xxxxx 66.  Procedure   for   vesting  of  rights   of   religious, charitable or educational institutions in Government and for determination of annuity --                   xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (9)  As  soon  as  may be after  the  determination  of  the annuity in respect of all holdings specified in the applica- tion  under  sub-section  (1)  of  section  65  (other  than holdings  in respect of which certificates of purchase  have been  issued), the Government shall issue a notification  in the Gazette declaring that the right, title and interest  of the  institution in respect of such holdings shall  vest  in the Government with effect from a date to be 669 specified in the notification, and all such right, title and interest shall accordingly vest in the Government free  from all encumbrances.                   xxxxx XXXXX xxxxx 72.  Vesting  of landlords rights in GOVernment -- (1) On  a date to be notified by the Government in this behalf in  the Gazette,  all rights, title and interest of  the  landowners and   intermediaries   in  respect  of  holdings   held   by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyirippus,  and holders  of  kariamas) entitled to fixity  of  tenure  under section 13 and in respect of which certificates of  purchase under  sub-section (2) of section 59 have not  been  issued, shall,  subject to the provisions of this section,  vest  in the  Government  free from all encumbrances created  by  the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon on  the said date.                xxxxx       xxxxx      xxxxx 72K.  Issue of certificate of purchase (1) As soon as may be after the determination of the purchase price under  section 72F  or  the passing of an order under  sub-section  (3)  of section 72 MM the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating tenant, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the landowner and the  intermediaries, if any, in respect of the holding or part thereon, to  which the  certificate  relates,  shall vest  in  the  cultivating tenant free from all encumbrances created by the  landowners or the intermediaries, if any. Explanation  --  For  the removal of doubts,  it  is  hereby declared  that on the issue of the certificate of  purchase, the landowner or any intermediary shall have no right in the land comprised in the holding, and all his rights  including rights,  is  any,  in  respect of  trees  reserved  for  his enjoyment shall stand extinguished.               XXXXX    XXXXXX           XXXXXX 72N.  Special provisions relating to institutions which have opted for annuity instead of purchase price -- (1)  Notwith- standing  anything contained in sections 72H and 721,  where in  respect of a holding the landowner or intermediary is  a religious, charitable or educational institution of a public nature and               (a)  an application from such institution  for               annuity is Pending On the date notified by the               Government  under sub-section (1)  of  section               72; or               (b)the annuity payable to such institution has               been determined, but no notification has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

             issued  under sub-section (9) of  section  66,               the  government shall Pay to such  institution               the  annuity that would have been  payable  to               the  institution  under section 67,  from  the               date notified under sub-section (1) of section               72, and the Government shall be entitled, sub-               ject  to the provisions of section 70, to  the               purchase  price  payable  by  the  cultivating               tenant  and, in the case of any  holding,  the               right, title and interest in respect of  which               have not vested in the Government on the  said               date, also the rent to which such  institution               is  entitled  from  the  said  date  till  its               rights,  title and interest are vested in  the               Government; Provided  that nothing contained in this  sub-section  shall affect the power of the Land Board to decide whether an  in- stitution   is  a  religious,  charitable   or   educational institution of a public nature: provided further that nothing contained in this  sub-section shall apply in the case of an institution which is found 670 by  the  Land  Board not to be a  religious,  charitable  or educational of a public nature: (IA)   An  application  from  a  religious,  charitable   or educational  institution  of  a public  nature  for  annuity pending or deemed to be pending on the date notified by  the Government  under sub-section ( of section 72 shall, on  the date  of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms  (Amendment) Act, 197 1, in the Gazette, abate, and where any such appli- cation  has  been made after the date of  such  publication, that application shall abate on the date on which it is  re- ceived by the Land Board. (1B)  For the removal of doubts it is hereby clarified  that the   annuity   payable  to  a  religious,   charitable   or educational institution of a public nature whose application abates under subsection (IA) shall be determined by the Land Tribunal  under  section 72F and that section  66  will  not apply for such determination. (2).Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 65 to 69, a  religious,  charitable or educational  institution  of  a public nature which has not expressed its choice for annuity instead  of  purchase price before the date  notified  under sub-section 72 shall not be entitled to express such choice, and   such  institution  shall  be  entitled  only  to   the compensation under section 72A." 11.We  are of the that the right, title and interest of  the landlords and intermediaries in respect of all lands in  the state  in  respect of holdings held by  cultivating  tenants vested  in the Government free from all encumbrances as  per section  72(1) of the Act.  The policy discernible from  the scheme  of  the Act shows that a uniform date is  fixed  for "vesting"  of the rights of the landlords in all  cases.   A different  date  for vesting, regarding lands  belonging  to religious  institutions, is not specified  or  contemplated. Section  65(1) enables the religious institutions to  choose whether their right, title and interest should be vested  in the  Government in consideration of a payment of an  annuity in perpetuity or whether such annuity should be paid instead of  purchase price in case the holding is purchased  by  the cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Act.  Section 66(9) of the Act does not contain any non obstante clause to negative  the  application  of the general  vesting  of  all rights,  interest  and title of the landlord  under  section 72(1)  of the Act.  The application of section 72(1) of  the

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

Act  is not in any way affected or whittled down by  section 66(9)  of the Act.  The vesting under section 72(1)  is  not subject  to  the provisions of section 66(9) of the  Act  at all.   That  apart,  section  72N(1A)  and  (1B)  are   very significant.  As per the said amended provisions by the  Act 25/1971,  all applications for annuity shall  stand  abated. There  is no question for determination under section 66  of the  Act.   It  is  only  Sec.  72F  that  applies  to  such application.   It  is  a  determination  by  Land  Tribunal. Section  72 does not envisage postponement of  the  vesting, due  to pendency of an application under section 65(1) by  a religious  or charitable institution of a public nature  for annuity in respect of the landlord’s interests in a  holding held  by a cultivating tenant.  The plea to the contrary  is repelled.   The rights of the Devaswom Board  Landlord  hand vested  in the Government on the appointed day as joined  in section 72(1) of the Act. 12.The  third  and  the last point urged on  behalf  of  the appellant  was that the right of the varamdars  relating  to the fish- 671 ing right in the nilam as provided in section 50A (2) of the Act  was  declared  ultra vires  in  Narayanan  Nair’s  case (supra)   and  it  is  only  by  the  Kerala  Land   Reforms (Amendment)  Act,  1969 (Kerala Act 95 of  1969)  which  was included  in  the Ninth Schedule of  the  Constitution,  the right   vested  in  the  varamdars  became   effective   and enforceable.   The said Act got assent of the  President  on 9.7.1972  and it is only from then onwards the right of  the varamdars came into existence.  We see force in the plea  of the  appellant’s counsel.  The High Court has, by its  order dated 3.8.1977, directed the trial court for disbursement of the  collections  made by the receiver during  the  time  he functioned and it is only appropriate to hold, that in  giv- ing directions in that behalf, the. trial court will bear in mind that the rights of the varamdars regarding the  fishing rights in the nilams became effective only from  9.7.1972.We hold accordingly. 13.  Subject  to the directions contained in para 12  supra, C.A.  No.  2312 of 1977 filed by the Cochin  Devaswom  Board shall  stand  dismissed.  But, in the  circumstances,  there shall be no order as to costs. 14.  The only point raised in the Special    Leave  Petition filed by the tenants is that  the   High  Court  failed   to adjudicate  and  declare the rights of the  tenants  in  the entire  suit  lands  inclusive of the  bunds,  canals  etc., abutting their properties.  We find that such a plea was not taken  up or adjudicated by the High Court when  it  decided S.A.  No.  1163 of 1973; nor when  the  Civil  Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 6759 and 9751 of 1977 were heard and disposed of  Since  the  plea now raised by the  petitioners  in  the S.L.P.  was not raised in the High Court, we hold  that  the ground urged in S.L.P. cannot be entertained at this belated stage.  We  dismiss the S.L.P. However, there  shall  be  no order as to costs. 15.  The Civil Appeal (subject to directions in para 12) and the  Special  Leave  Petitions are  dismissed,  but  without costs. 673