1996 (1) TMI 487 - SC - Indian Laws

Section 76 and Explanation II of the 1987 Act Invalid for Removing Vested Ryotwari Patta Rights Under Inams Abolition Act

Peddinti Venkata Murali Ranganatha Desika Iyengar and Ors. Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

The SC held that Section 76 and Explanation II to Section 2(22) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987, ... - ISSUES: Whether Explanation II to Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987, are constitutionally valid.Whether the legislature has competence to divest vested rights acquired under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 ('Inams Abolition Act') by deeming ryotwari pattas granted to archakas, service holders or employees as religious endowments and prohibiting their transfer.Whether Section 76 of the Act indirectly repeals or overrides the provisions and vested rights created under the Inams Abolition Act without express amendment or repeal.The extent to which a later statute can affect or alter the rights conferred by an earlier statute, especially when based on an erroneous legislative assumption.The applicability and scope of the Inams Abolition Act regarding service inams and the grant of ryotwari pattas to service holders. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that Explanation II to Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the Act, insofar as they seek to divest vested rights acquired under the Inams Abolition Act and treat ryotwari pattas granted to service holders as religious endowments subject to transfer prohibitions, are invalid and unconstitutional.The legislature is 'devoid of competence' to take away vested rights without compensation by a 'legislative side-wind' that nullifies the grant of ryotwari pattas under the Inams Abolition Act.The Inams Abolition Act is a 'complete code in itself' that confers 'absolute right, title and interest' in land upon grant of ryotwari patta, extinguishing prior inam obligations and creating vested rights protected by law.Section 76 of the Act, by deeming such ryotwari pattas never granted and prohibiting transfers, attempts an indirect repeal or nullification of the Inams Abolition Act and related judicial decisions, which is disfavored and ineffective without express amendment or repeal.A statute founded on an erroneous assumption about the existing law does not effect a change in the law; the legislature 'has plainly misfired' by enacting Section 76 and Explanation II without properly amending or repealing the Inams Abolition Act. RATIONALE: The Court applied principles of statutory interpretation emphasizing that repeal by implication is disfavored, especially when vested rights are affected, and that a later statute cannot alter an earlier statute based on mistaken assumptions.The Inams Abolition Act was enacted under Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution concerning land rights and tenure, and provides a comprehensive scheme for abolition of inam lands and grant of ryotwari pattas with finality and vested ownership rights.Judicial precedents recognize service inams as within the purview of the Inams Abolition Act, granting absolute ownership upon ryotwari patta issuance, extinguishing prior service obligations.The Court distinguished the present case from precedents involving procedural conflicts between statutes with overlapping fields, noting that the Inams Abolition Act occupies a distinct field conferring substantive rights, which cannot be overridden by conflicting provisions in the later Act.Authoritative texts and case law were cited to support that legislation based on erroneous assumptions cannot change the law, and that the legislature must expressly amend or repeal prior law to divest vested rights.Accordingly, the Court invalidated Section 76 and Explanation II to the extent they conflict with the Inams Abolition Act and the vested rights recognized thereunder.