MADHAVAN PILLAI Vs. BHARGAVI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is by the 5th Respondent (now represented by his legal representatives) in O. P. No. 2268 of 1972 against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court, who allowed the writ Petition and quashed Exts. P -1 to P -3 orders for eviction of the Petitioners, and declare that the authorities have a duty to do whatever was necessary to restore the status quo prior to the filing of the writ Petition. The 5th Respondent's tarwad had been granted viruthy in respect of about 29 cents of land in Sy. No. 5670 of Karunagappally village. Patta No. 23 was granted to the tarwad. It is well settled by judicial decisions that viruthy is a service tenure liable to be resumed if alienated and that the alienee gets no right by reason of his possession consequent on the transfer. This position was recognised and crystallised by the Viruthy Proclamation of 1061 M.E. Section 8 of the Proclamation reads:

(2.) ON the above facts, proceedings were taken under the Land Conservancy Act for eviction of the Petitioners. Exts. P -1 to P -3 are the orders passed by the Tahsildar, the Collector on appeal, and the Board of Revenue on further revision. These orders recognised the liability for eviction of the Petitioners under the Land Conservancy Act and directed their eviction.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Respondents very fairly and properly invited our attention to Section 8 of the Viruthi Proclamation of 1061, and to the Rules of 1074, and, in particular, Rule 3 thereof. Section 8 of the Proclamation declares that all alienations of viruthi lands shall be void and recognises the Government's power to resume the alienated viruthi land and restore it to the holder or, otherwise dispose of it in such way as they deem fit. This is sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act. There is a blanket provision in Section 8 conferring protection on the Government against action taken in respect of such land in any court of law. Rule 3 of 1074 viruthi Rules only further amplifies the position. We do not think we should expatiate further on it. We are no scope for any complaint that the machinery for dealing with the transferees of viruthi lands has not been indicated by the terms of the Proclamation or the Rules.