SRI RAJA V. SARVAGNAYA KUMARA KRISHNA YACHENDRA BAHADUR VARU, RAJAH OF VENKATAGIRI Vs. THE PROVINCE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the proprietor of the zamindari of Venkatagiri, a permanently settled estate of considerable extent in the district of Nellore. Within the estate are numerous parcels of land granted as inams before the permanent settlement for various pious and charitable purposes or as remuneration for village offices in the estate. The Provincial Government, respondent herein, purported to "enfranchise" such of these inams as were annexed to certain classes of village offices in the estate and impose quit -rents thereon payable to Government, claiming to be entitled to do so under the provisions of the Madras Proprietary Estates' Village -Service Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though the enfranchisement was "cancelled" subsequently, the appellant, alleging that such " ancellation " was ultra vires, brought the suit in which this appeal arises against the Government for a declaration that he is entitled to have the peishcush or permanent assessment of the zamindari reduced in the manner provided for in Sub -section (3) of Section 27 of the Act. He also prayed for certain consequential reliefs which by subsequent amendment of the plaint were omitted for reasons to which reference will be made later.

(2.) THE right of resuming or assessing to public revenue the inam lands in the estate which were granted before the permanent settlement has been a bone of contention between the parties for over a century, but it is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to trace the antecedent history of the disputes further back than 1910 when the appellant's grandfather instituted a suit (O.S. No. 10 of 1910), in the District Court of Nellore for a declaration that he and not the Government was entitled to resume all inams situated within his zamindari whether held rent -free (lakhiraj) or on favourable rent, and for an injunction restraining the Government from dealing with them under the inam rules or otherwise. He claimed that under the permanent settlement concluded by the Government of the East India Company in 1802 with the then Zamindar the terms of which were embodied in a sannad -i -nilkeut istimrar dated 24th August, 1802, the Government granted all the lands in the zamindari reserving only lands appropriated to the support of the Police Establishment besides the three heads of revenue, salt, sayer and spirituous liquors, but without any reservation of other lakhiraj lands and lands held on favourable rents such as was contemplated in Section 4 of the Permanent Settlement Regulation (XXV of 1802). On the other hand, the Government contended that the provisions of the regulations were applicable to the permanent settlement of all zamindaries including Venkatagiri, that all lakhiraj lands as well as lands held on favourable quit -rents must accordingly be deemed to have been excluded from the assets on which the permanent assessment was fixed with the result that the right of resuming such lands vested in the Government and. that, in particular, the Government had, by virtue of the statutory power conferred by the Act, the right to enfranchise, by the imposition of quit -rent, the inams attached to those village offices in the appellant's estate to which that Act had been made applicable. On the general issue, the trial Court held that the Government did not reserve to itself the right to resume lakhiraj lands and lands bearing favourable quit -rents at the time of the permanent settlement of the Venkatagiri zamindari and was not entitled, either under the terms of the sannad or by virtue of Regulation XXV of 1802, to resume such lands, and that the Zamindar alone was entitled to the reversion of all such lands and had the right to resume or assess them to revenue. With reference to the special ground of claim put forward by the Government in respect of village -service inams, which was the subject of issue 17, the learned District Judge noted that the Zamindar did not press the contention raised in that issue and held that "the plaintiff is disentitled in consequence of the provisions of Act II of 1894, to object to the enfranchisement of village -service inam." Accordingly he made a decree dated 30th September, 1912, declaring that the Government was "not entitled to resume or assess to public revenue inams or lakhiraj lands (other than village -service inams enfranchised by Government under the provisions of Act II of 1894) within the Venkatagiri zamindari or to any reversionary right in such inams," and permanently restraining the Government and its officers from dealing with such inams under the inam rules. The Zamindar did not prefer any appeal in respect of the village -service inams but the Government, after unsuccessfully appealing to this Court, carried the matter to the Privy Council. In the meantime, acting on the decision of the trial Court which was thus allowed to become final so far as it related to the village -service inams in the estate, the Government proceeded to implement the policy underlying the Act by enfranchising such inams and substituting salaries for the village establishments, and issued notifications under Section 17 of the Act directing that the enfranchisement should take effect in the different groups of villages mentioned therein on the various specified dates during the years 1914 and 1915 On 15th July, 1921, the Privy Council rejected the appeal.

(3.) IT will thus be seen that the decision proceeded on broad grounds of the principles and policy on which the permanent settlement of the "four western zamindaries" including Venkatagiri was effected and on the interpretation of the sannad issued to the Zamindar - -grounds that are equally applicable to the village -service inams situated within the zamindari, although these inams did not form part of the subject matter of the appeal before their Lordships which was concerned only with other classes of inams in the estate. This is accepted by both parties in these proceedings and it is, accordingly, common ground that village -service inams were also included in the estate granted to the Zamindar under the sannad, and that, in consequence of such inclusion, the reversionary right in such inams was vested in the Zamindar and not in the Government.