Inam vesting and appurtenant rights: attached abkari rights passed with the land, and compensation under the abolition scheme was upheld.

Earlier inams legislation was treated as continuing in force after the later abolition law was struck down, because the void later enactment could not undo the prior vesting of the inams in the Government. The abkari and tree-related rights attached to the inam lands were construed as appurtenant to the grant, so they vested in the State along with the inam lands on abolition. The compensation scheme was therefore held to cover those attached rights without separate compensation, and the abolition measure was upheld as constitutionally valid as agrarian reform. The appeal failed and the dismissal of the suit was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier inams legislation continued to operate after the later abolition law was struck down, (ii) whether the abkari rights attached to the inam lands vested in the State on abolition of the inams, and (iii) whether the compensation scheme was invalid for want of separate compensation for those rights or for contravention of the Constitution.

Issue (i): whether the earlier inams legislation continued to operate after the later abolition law was struck down.

Analysis: The later enactment was treated as a void and ineffective attempt to abolish inams that had already vested in the Government under the earlier regime. The invalidation of the later Act was read in the light of the reasoning that the earlier abolition and vesting had already taken effect, so the later law could not undo or replace that position. The earlier Act and its amendment were therefore treated as remaining in force.

Conclusion: The earlier abolition law was held to remain operative.

Issue (ii): whether the abkari rights attached to the inam lands vested in the State on abolition of the inams.

Analysis: The definition of inam, the vesting provisions, and the statutory definition of land were read together. The rights claimed were not treated as independent of the inam lands but as rights appurtenant to them, especially because the grant was expressed to carry all sources of income. On that construction, the abolition of the inams carried with it the extinction and vesting of the attached abkari and tree-related rights in the State.

Conclusion: The abkari rights were held to have vested in the State with the inam lands.

Issue (iii): whether the compensation scheme was invalid for want of separate compensation for those rights or for contravention of the Constitution.

Analysis: Once the abkari rights were held to be part of the inam rights that vested in the State, the compensation provisions were treated as covering those rights as part of the overall scheme. The abolition measure was also treated as agrarian reform, bringing it within the constitutional protection available to such legislation, and the challenge based on absence of separate compensation failed.

Conclusion: The compensation scheme and the abolition law were upheld as constitutionally valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the judgment dismissing the suit was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a grant of inam land carries rights appurtenant to the land and the statutory scheme abolishes and vests the inam with all rights, title and interest, those attached rights pass with the land and are compensated under the general compensation provisions of the abolition law.

---