T. KRISHNAVENI AMMAL BY HER HUSBAND AND POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT T.RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. MADRAS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the Judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar J., dismissing a petition filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Madras to forbear from taking over possession of an estate known as East Mambalam and West Mambalam in the district of Madras as notified in the Notification published in the Fort. St. George Gazette, dated 12 th December, 1950, and from interfering with collection of arrears of rent due to the petitioner and from taking any proceedings under Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The two estates, East Mambalam and West Mambalam, originally formed part of one estate known as the Mambalam zamin, and it is due to historical reasons that what was originally a single zamindari became split up into separate parts known as East and West Mambalam. The reason for this splitting was the enlargement of the limits of the Presidency -town. Originally the entire zamin was part of the district of Chingleput and was therefore outside the City of Madras. Subsequently, by notification, dated 15th June, 1925, the limits of the City of Madras were extended, taking in a portion of the Mambalam Zamin. The portion thus included in the City of Madras came to be called East Mambalam and the rest of the estate continued to be in the district of Ghingleput and called West Mambalam. There was a consequent apportionment of the peshcush also. In the year 1946, even the remaining portion of the zamin which had been part of the Ghingleput district was also included within the City limits. On the date of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, the entire zamindari, comprising East and West Mambalam, was within the limits of the Presidency -town.

(2.) THE notification of the zamin under Madras Act XXVI of 1948, was attacked before Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., on several grounds. None of the grounds found favour with the learned Judge who dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE contention was founded on Sub -section (3). In spite of the fact that today East and West Mambalam zamins are within the Presidency -town of Madras, admittedly they were outside its limit ana formed part of the Chingleput district on 1st July, 1908. The Act therefore is applicable to the appellant's zamins under Section 1(2) of the Act. The argument of Mr. Vedantachari was that the effect of Sub -section (3) of Section 1 of the Act is that only estates which were governed by the provisions of the Madias Estates Land Act, 1908, on the date of the coming into force of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 would be governed by the Act, and as the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, would not apply to the appellant's zamins -because they are situated within the limits of the Presidency -town, it follows that the provisions of Act XXVI of 1948 as well does not apply. In our opinion this argument is based on a misconstruction of Sub -section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. That sub -section does not say that Madras Act XXVI of 1948 applies only to estates governed by the Madras Estates Land Act. On the other hand it says that the Act applies to all estate as defined in Section 3(2) of the Act except certain inam villages which became estates by virtue of an Amendment Act of 1936. Once the estate satisfies the definition contained in Section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, clearly Act XXVI of 1948 applies to such an estate, irrespective of the fact that it is or is not governed by the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, on account of any peculiar circumstances. It is a well -established legislative practice to incorporate in an Act definitions contained in another Act for the purpose of convenient reference. Such incorporation will not have the effect of attracting all the provisions of the Act in which the definition is contained. In our opinion the zamindari which later on became split up into East and West Mambalam zamins if, an estate as defined in Section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act as it is a permanently settled zamindari. The provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, therefore, apply to the appellant's zamins and the notification thereunder was not invalid by reason of the fact that on the date of the notification the zamins were situated, within the Presidency -town of Madras. In this view it is unnecessary to deal with the effect of Section 62 of the Act which was referred to in argument, fee -cause it clearly appears to us that without recourse to that section it can be held that Madras Act XXVI of 1948 applies to the appellant's zamins.