VYRAVAN CHETTIAR CHATRAM BY HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, D. SHANMUGA RAJA Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF SETTLEMENTS OF ESTATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise a common question of interpretation of Section 35 -A of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. That section as well as Section 30 -A were introduced by Madras Act XXXIV of 1958. Before dealing with the actual problem arising in these petitions, and noticing the facts relevant thereto, it is, in order to have a better appreciation, necessary even at -the outset to refer to the reasons, why the Amending Act of 1958 was passed. In The State of Madras v. Srinivasa Aiyangar : AIR 1956 Mad 597 it was held that a minor Dharmilla inam formed part of the parent estate and on a notification under Section 3(b) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the entire interest in the major as well as the minor inams as parts of one estate will pass to the Government. It was further held that such a minor inamdar would, under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, be entitled to a proportionate share out of the compensation which of course would be computed for the estate as a whole. Marimuthu Pillai v. Krishna Joshi : (1958) 1 MLJ 273 decided by a Division Bench of this Court arose out of an order passed by the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, on a petition under Section 42 of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, seeking payment of advance compensation deposited with the Tribunal in respect of Karungalur Estate in Tanjore District. The petitioner, who had already owned kudiwaram interest, acquired the melwaram interest in the identical land. The estate in which the village is situate was admittedly on inam estate within Section 3(2). The Tribunal held that the petitioner was not entitled to any portion of the compensation as and for the melwaram interest he had purchased. One of the reasons which prompted the Tribunal was that when a person who held a kudiwaram interest in a land obtained by purchase or otherwise melwaram interest in it, he did not thereby become a landholder within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act. In taking that view the Tribunal was supported by Ganjain Manikyambu v. Pasala Mallayya : (1924) 47 MLJ 393 Mad where the learned Judge though on a slightly different reason, reached the same conclusion on the basis of Section 6 -A of the Madras Estates Land Act corresponding to the old Section 6(6), to wit, when the kudiwaramdar acquired melwaram interest, there was no merger of the two interests and the melwaramdar held such interest only as melwaramdar and not as a landholder. The Tribunal's further ground in that case was that when the estate was notified under Madras Act XXVI of 1948 it was the interest of the landholder qua landholder that became vested in the Government under Section 3(b) and the compensation provided for in the Act was only for that interest. This reason, the learned Judges declined to accept. They held that on a correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act, the appellant was entitled to compensation for the melwaram interest taken over from the notified date. The conclusion of the Division Bench was summed up thus:

(2.) I have referred to the earlier state of the law as expounded by this Court and. the legislative history of Sections 30 -A and 35 -A with a view to appreciate the precise nature and scope of what the Government considered to be a defect which it sought to remedy by the amending provisions of those sections. I shall presently refer to the terms of these sections.

(3.) THE petitioner's objection is to this deduction, his contention being that such deduction is not warranted by Section 35 -A. Against the order of the Director, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Board of Revenue which, by its order dated 24th November, 1959, declined to interfere with the view of the Director. The Board's view is this: