RAMACHANDURUNI PURUSHOTHAM Vs. RAMACHANDURUNI VENKATAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application relates to the office of the Karnam of Tangutur village, Ongore taluk, Guntur District. One RamKrishnayya was the holder of this office till 23rd Nov-ember 1922 when he died. He left behind him two sons. The first respondent Venkatappa was then a major and the petitioner Purushotham a minor. The first respondent renounced his right to the office by a letter addressed to the Revenue authorities and the petitioner was recognised as the Karnam of the village by an order of the Sub Collector dated 4th February 1923. As he was a minor he was registered as Karnam with his paternal uncle as deputy. He attained majority in due course and took charge of the office in 1927 and ever since that date he has been discharging the duties of his officer. While 60, on 6th March 1950 the Government passed an order purporting to be in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2(c) of the Madras Restoration of Village Officers (Validation) Act, Madras Act XVIII of 1939 directing that the first respondent be appointed as Karnam in the place of the petitioner, the existing incumbent. The petitioner seeks to have this order of Government quashed.

(2.) Madras Act XVIII of 1939 was passed for the purpose of validating the restoration of village officers who had lost their offices by reason of their association or connection with political movements. The Government thought that it was desirable to restore the position which would have obtained if the officers or their heirs had not lost their offices or their right thereto because of their association or connection with political movements, Section 2 of the Act runs thus,

(3.) In our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled in this case to urge the first ground. We are also of the view that even if he is entitled to attack the order of the Government on the ground that it was vitiated by 'mala fides', we have ample material on which to hold that the order of the Government cannot be impugned as being in any sense 'mala fide'. Under Section 3 the declaration of the Government that the order passed by them is of the nature referred to in Section 2 is conclusive proof thereof. It was decided in 'Lakshminarasimha v. Province of Madras', ILR (1945) Mad 398 that this section was 'intra vires' the Madras Legislature and that it was a valid provision of law and was not in conflict with the provisions of Section 4 or of any other section of the Indian Evidence Act. Leach C. J. observed construing the section