H. R. SATHYANARAYANA RAO Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY COLLECTOR OF DHARMAPURI DISTRICT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Village of Marasandram in Hosur Taluk was notified as an inam estate under the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1963). Thereupon the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Officer under Section 5 of the Madras Inams Supplementary Act (XXXI of 1963) for a declaration that Marasandram village was a minor inam and not an inam estate within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1963. The Settlement Officer held that it is an "Existing Inam" within the meaning of Section 2(4) of that Act and that therefore the notification was valid. In an appeal preferred against this judgment, the Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal, Dharmapuri was of the view that it is an existing inam estate and, at any rate, it would come within the definition of "part village inam estate" and that therefore, the notification was valid. It is against the judgment of the Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal the present revision has been filed under Section 7 of Madras Act XXXI of 1963.

(2.) SECTION 2(4) of Madras Act XXVI of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines an "existing inam" as meaning any inam village which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act (XVIII of 1936). Prior to the amendment by the Madras Act XVIII of 1936, an estate was defined in Section 2(d) as meaning any village of which the land revenue had been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudiwaram thereof, provided that the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government, or any separated part of such village. After the amendment, any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant the village had been partitioned among the grantees or the successors -in -title of the grantee or grantees was included in the definition and became an inam estate. It would thus be seen that prior to the amendment, in order to bring it within the definition of the inam estate, the grant must be of the land revenue alone to a person not owning the kudiwaram kudiwaram thereof. Under the amended provision, even those grants which were of both the land revenue and the kudiwaram or of land revenue alone to a person already owning the kudiwaram thereof were also included in the definition of inam estate.... But in respect of both these cases, the grant should be of a whole village or a, named village.

(3.) THE evidence produced in this case consisted of the Inam Fair Register Extract relating to Marasandram Agra -haram Village and two other inam extracts relating to two minor inams, one granted as Devadayam inam and another as Bhattavrithi inam. These two minor inam lands are comprised in the Marasandram village. It is seen from the Inam Register Extract relating to Marasandram Agraharm Village that the village was originally granted in A. D. 1623 by Poligar Chudappa Naick to Sankaranarayana Bhat as; Serva Inam Village. It is described as given for subsistence as charity and was also made hereditary. In columns 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 the total ayacut poramboke lands an the minor inams are referred to with their extent and the rate of assessment relating to five tharams of dry land and five tharams of wet land. The total assessment is given as Rs. 326 -9 -7 after deducting the assessment on the minor inams amounting to Rs. 7 -16 -10. At the time of the Inam Commission Enquiry, it appears that the original grant was produced as also two later confirmatory grants. The extract also shows the persons who are registered as holders and the relationship to the original grantee. In the remarks column we find that among the number of registered holders two of them for a long time were looking after collection and payment of jodi of the village. It is also stated that the agraharamdars were not able to give any accounts of the cultivation, but they only state that they derived nearly Rs. 220 from the village. The karnam had given a statement to the effect that the cultivation value on the average was Rs. 200. In calculating the jodi payable, we find that a sum of Rs. 9 towards the salary of the thotty and Rs. 12 towards karnam's salary are deducted from the ayacut value before the jodi was fixed. The confirmation also refers to the village as a grant.