NEELAKANTAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR QUILON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, three in number, are in separate possession of different portions of lands comprised in Sy. Nos. 2045, 2534, 2588, 2635, 2814 and 2757 included in Viruthi Patta 8 of Perinad Village, Karunagappally Taluk. The Tahsildar, Karunagappilly, took proceedings to evict them under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act on the ground that they are in unauthorised occupation of Government land. They objected on the ground that proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act are not applicable to these lands in view of the fact that they are not Government land. They further contended that they are in possession of these properties as lessees entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964. The Tahsildar did not accept both these contentions in view of the fact that these lands are Government lands governed by the Viruthi Rules passed on 9-7-1945 by the Erstwhile Travancore Government defining the conditions of Viruthi service and the duties of Viruthi holders. This order of the Tahsildar was upheld by the Revenue Divisional Officer on appeal. On further revision to the District Collector, Quilon, the decision of the Tahsildar was confirmed. There orders are sought to be quashed in this original petition on the same grounds that were urged before the Revenue authorities.

(2.) It is not disputed that the petitioners are in possession of lands comprised in Viruthi Patta No. 8 of Perinad Village. That patta is in the name of the 4th respondent who is the present eldest male member in the tarwad to which these properties were originally granted for performance of specified services. Viruthi lands are Government lands given to families or individuals for performance of specified services in temples or other institutions. At the time of the Revenue settlement in the erstwhile State of Travancore a question arose as to how Inam lands have to be settled. Lands comprised in personal inams, i. e., inams granted for support of individual families, were allowed to be enjoyed by the holders in absolute right on payment of specified Government dues and after such settlement the holders were declared to be at liberty to mortgage, sell or transfer them in any manner at their will and discretion subject to the payment of Government Revenue. Lands comprised in service inams, i. e., inams granted for the purpose of specified services, were separately dealt with under another proclamation dated 4th Edavam, 1061, called the 'Viruthi Proclamation'. Some reliefs were given to the holders of these lands by making the services less onerous. So long as the services were performed the holders were allowed to continue in possession. But such lands were declared by S.8 of the Proclamation to be inalienable and if any alienation is made, the Government was given power to resume any such land for restoring it to the holder or otherwise disposing of it as the Government may think fit. In supersession of the earlier rules fresh rules were framed in 1945 to ensure the performance of the services by the holder during his life time and to transfer the holding after his death. This successor in whose name the holding is transferred by the Government is entitled under the rules to seek the aid of the Government to get possession of the property if the property is found by him to be in the possession of any person other than the one in whose name transfer of registry was ordered. He is allowed to surrender his rights over the land in favour of the Government so as to enable the Government to proceed under the Land Conservancy Act against the occupant. It is on the basis of these rules that the 4th respondent sought the aid of the Government to get possession of the lands in question which are in the possession of the petitioners. The petitioners did not claim possession under the 4th respondent. They claimed to be lessees under the prior holder of the land. As per S.8 of the Viruthi Proclamation and R.3(1) of the Viruthi Rules framed under it the transfer of possession effected by the prior holder is invalid. A Viruthikaran is declared to be not entitled to any rights over the holding except its enjoyment during the regular performance of the services imposed on him. That rules reads as follows:--

(3.) S.3 of the Kerala land Reforms Act exempts lands belonging to or vested in the Government from the operation of the tenancy provisions of the Act. 'Land belonging to or vested in the Government' shall have, by virtue of Explanation I to S.3(1) of Act I of 1964, the same meaning as Government land under sub-s.(1) of S.2 of the Kerala Government land Assignment Act, 1960. Sub-s.(1) of S.2 of the land Assignment Act defines Government land to include all lands wherever situated except in so far as the same are the properties of jenmies or holders of inams, or holders of land subject to the payment of land revenue to the Government or of any registered holder of the land in proprietary right. The argument of the petitioners is that this is 'the property of the holder of the inam' and not a Govt. land That is not so. So far as the Travancore area is concerned the properties of holders of Inams are only those lands comprised in personal inams, i.e., inams granted for support of individual families which are settled as per S.24, Para.2 to 7 of the Revenue Settlement Proclamation, 1061 M. E. Lands attached to specific services are not the property of the inam holders. S.8 of Viruthi Proclamation, 1061, and R.3(1) of the Viruthi Rules clearly provide that the holder of a land attached to specific services has no right over his Viruthi holding except its enjoyment during the regular performance of the service imposed on him. That means, the holding is not the property of the holder of the inam. Therefore the argument that this is not a Government land and therefore the exception claimed under S.3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act will not apply is not sustainable. Leases granted by the Viruthikaran are invalid under R.3 of the Viruthi rules. The tenancy claimed by the petitioners is in respect of Government lands and as against the Government they have no right to claim any fixity of tenure by virtue of S.3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Hence, the Revenue authorities are right in rejecting the claim of the petitioners and ordering eviction under the Land Conservancy Act. The original petition therefore fails. It is dismissed. But, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.