M. VEDACHALA PILLAI AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions raises a common question.

(2.) In the Presidency of Madras there were two enactments, the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service Act (II of 1894) and the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895) in force Sec. 6 of the latter Act dealt with the re -grouping of villages or division of villages and the appointment of officers to such re -grouped or divided villages. The basic principle under the Act was to recognise the hereditary right to the offices enumerated in Sec. 3(1) of the Act Consistent with that basic principle Sec. 6(1) of the Act provided that in choosing persons to fill up such offices the Collector shall select persons whom he may consider best qualified from among the families of she last holders of the offices which have been abolished. Sec. 10 of the Act dealt with the succession to the offices and provided that, when a vacancy occurred in any of the village offices forming class (1) in Sec. J, the Collector shall fill up the vacancy in accordance with the provisions of the succeeding sub -sections and that succession shall devolve on a single heir according to the general custom and rule of primogeniture governing succession to impartible zamindaries in southern India. Sub -section (1) of Sec. 10 enumerated certain disqualifications for such persons. Sub -section (3) stated that, where the next heir was not qualified under Sub -section (1), the Collector shall appoint the person next in order of succession who was so qualified, and, in (the absence of any such person in the line of succession, may appoint any person duly qualified under Sub -section (1).

(3.) The validity of Sec. 6(1) of the Act was the subject -matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh : [1961] 2 SCR 931 . The Supreme Court held: