1999 (5) TMI 631 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai as 'part village inam estate' under Act 26, deems Act 30 notification illegal.

R.E.M.S. Abdul Hameed Versus Govindaraju & Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal and High Court's findings, concluding that Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai constitutes a 'part village inam estate' ... - Issues Involved:1. Determination of whether Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai is a minor inam under The Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) or falls under the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1963 (Act 26 of 1963).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of the Applicable Act:The central question is whether Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai, consisting of Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai, is a minor inam under Act 30 of 1963 or falls under Act 26 of 1963. The State Government initially issued a notification treating it under Act 26 of 1963, later withdrew, and notified it under Act 30 of 1963. The appellants contended that the State Government correctly issued the notification under Act 30 of 1963, which was upheld by the Settlement Officer.2. Petition by Respondents:The respondents filed a petition under Section 5 of the Madras Inams (Supplementary) Act (Act 31 of 1963) for a declaration that the two distinct areas in Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai form a new inam estate falling under Act 26 of 1963. The Settlement Officer dismissed the petition, holding that the land was a minor inam under Act 30 of 1963.3. Tribunal's Decision:The respondents appealed to the Minor Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal, which allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the two portions granted in inam could be identified without their extents and boundaries being given, construing it as a 'part village inam estate'. The Tribunal also referred to the Madras High Court's decision in Karumbavira Vanniar, which dealt with the same estate, concluding that the grant was of two separate bits of land lying in two different taraf villages and was amalgamated in 1919 to form Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai village.4. High Court's Decision:The High Court rejected the appellants' submission that the grant was expressed only in terms of acreages or cawnies. It held that the references to paimash accounts and subsequent surveys were compiled after the grant, and thus, it could not be concluded that it was described in the grant itself. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, setting aside the notification under Act 30 of 1963.5. Supreme Court's Analysis:The Supreme Court analyzed the historical context of inam lands and the relevant legislative provisions. It referred to various definitions and judicial interpretations, emphasizing the need to interpret Sub-clause (b), Explanation 1 to Section 2(11) of Act 26 of 1963. The Court noted that the grant's original documents were not on record, and the parties relied on collateral evidence from the Karumbavira Vanniar case.6. Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the area of Mela and Kizha formed part of the respective villages and thus constituted a 'part village inam estate'. It could not be held that the grant was expressed only in terms of acreages or cawnies. The Court found merit in the respondents' alternative submission that even if the grant referred to acreage, it was not expressed 'only in terms of acreages or cawnies'. The Court upheld the Tribunal and High Court's findings and dismissed the appeals, affirming the notification under Act 30 of 1963 was illegal.Judgment:The appeals were dismissed, and the notification under Act 30 of 1963 was held to be illegal. The findings of the Tribunal and High Court were upheld, confirming that Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai is a 'part village inam estate' under Act 26 of 1963.