PALEPU CHELLAYYA Vs. KALLA PYDI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition raises an interesting question which is whether a village artisan coming within the ambit of clause (4) of section 3 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, can resign his post. In a recent judgment in Ramakrishna Rao v. Sattemma, (1960) 1 An. W.R. 433.Anantanarayana Ayyar" J. held that he could resign the post. Not prepared to accept the correctness of this judgment, Sharfuddin Ahmed, J. has referred the question for decision to a Division Bench. To appreciate the contentions raised in this Revision Petition, it will be conve- nient to trace the origin of the hereditary village officers. In almost every village, twelve kinds of village servants, called the ' bara - balute ' or ' twelve men' perform all needful public offices. The following is the list:- (1) The headman. (2) Karnam (Patwari or Accountant). (3) Shroff or Notagar (he examines the coins paid in, a useful functionary in former times when coins were so various). (4) Nirganti (who looks after the distribution of the irrigation). (5) Taliyari or Toti (village constable). (6) Potter. (7) Blacksmith. (8) Goldsmith. (9) Carpenter. (10) Barber, (11) Washerman. (12) Astrologer (to tell the auspicious days for beginning to plough, harvesting, etc). The first five in the list render service to the Government and they are recognised as parts of the revenue administration. The remainder in the list are the artisans necessary for the internal conduct of the village community. These offices are hereditary, which means that the heirs succeed in the usual course under the law of inheritance applicable to the office-holders. In the case of non-Government village servants belonging to categories (6) to (12) in the list mentioned above, the Government have in former days given inam lands to such servants.

(2.) .In the year 1831, Madras Regulation VI was passed and that has governed the hereditary village offices till 1895 when the Madras Act III of 1895 was passed. The Regulation provided for due performance of the hereditary village offices and prohibition of alienation of the emoluments attached to those offices. The jurisdiction to decide claims to offices and the emoluments attached thereto was vested in the Revenue Board. The Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, III of 1895 repealed the Madras Regulation VI of 1831. The preamble to the Act which explains its object and intendment reads as follows :- " Whereas it is expedient to provide more precisely for the succession to certain hereditary village offices in the Presidency of Madras ; for the hearing and disposal of claims to such offices or the emoluments annexed thereto ; for the appointment of persons to hold such offices and the control of the holders thereof; and for certain other purposes ; . . . " The Act applies to only those hereditary village 'offices to which emoluments have been attached and it does not create hereditary rights of succession which are not previously hereditary. The Act provides the rules of succession for some village offices. Section 3 of the Act divides into four classes the village offices to which the Act is applicable. Section 3 (i) mentions six categories of offices. Section 3 (4) sets out the hereditary offices of the village artisans and the village servants belonging to the following categories :- (i) The village carpenter, (ii) The village blacksmith, (iii) The village barber. (iv) The village washerman, (v) The village potter. (vi) The village astrologer, (vii) The village purohit or priest. Section 10 specifies the rules to be observed in making appointments to certain offices in Government villages and the general qualifications requisite in all cases. The office of the village washerman which is the subject-matter of controversy in the present case appears in the list of village offices set out in sub-section (4) of section 3. Section 10 (1) states that a person shall not be eligible to any of the offices given in the list in section 3(1) unless he has attained the age of majority, but this provision is not applied in respect of the offices falling under section 3 (4) and the succession to the offices mentioned in section 3 (4) is governed by the provisions of section 12, which says that succession to such offices shall devolve in accordance with the law or custom applicable thereto at the date on which the Act comes into force.

(3.) Now, as already indicated, the short question for decision in this case is whether the village artisan belonging to the category of offices specified in section 3 (4) canresign his office.