PETITIONER:
P.MUNIAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF T.N.
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/12/1993
BENCH:
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
BENCH:
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
ANAND, A.S. (J)
CITATION:
1994 AIR 1062 1994 SCC (1) 643
JT 1993 Supl. 316 1993 SCALE (4)699
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M. SAHAI, J.- The short question that arises for
consideration in this appeal is if the land in dispute is
‘minor inam’ as defined in sub-section (9) of Section 2 of
the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Act 30 of 1963′)or it is ‘new inam estate’ under
Act 26 of 1963.
2.Proceedings commenced on an application filed under
Section 5 of Act 30of 1963 by the Devasthanam landholder-
respondent for declaration that the land in dispute of Title
Deed No. 837 situated in Village Annapettai
+ From the Judgment and Order dated June 16, 1980 of the
Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 2865 of 1978
644
was minor inam as defined in Act 30 of 1963. The claim was
contested both by the tenants-appellants and the State
Government. The application was allowed by the Settlement
Officer. It was found that even though the original grant
had not been made available by the respondents nor extracts
from Inam Fair Register were filed, yet there was material
available on the record for arriving- at a decision about
the nature of the land. It was held that the original grant
for Title Deed Nos. 836, 838 and 839 were available. Since
these grants established that the land carved out of the
village had been given to these institutions it was clear
that the grant in favour of the respondents was not of the
whole village. And the provisions of Section 3(2)(d) of Act
1 of 1908 were not attracted. It was also held that land
covered by Title Deed No. 837 did not form part of an
existing inam estate. The Settlement Officer further found
that the land was neither a part village inam estate nor a
minor inam, as from Exhibits P-5 and P-6 it was clear that
even though suit lands were situated in a compact block they
did not conform with a homogenous area within the village as
there was mixture of other inam or ryotwari lands in its
midst. In appeal the order was upheld. The appellate
authority found that neither party led any oral evidence and
the claim of the parties was to be decided on basis of
certain documents which had been filed by the respondents.
It held that there was nothing to show that the land covered
by four title deeds formed part of the single grant
originally and that the grant was subsequently divided into
four parts. Nor did it find any merit in the submission
that Exhibits P-2 and P-3 indicated that the grant was of a
named village. The appellate authority agreed with the
Settlement Officer that the summary map, Exhibit P-5 and
Exhibit P-6 map indicated that the suit land was situated
along with other inam or ryotwari lands. In further
revision to the High Court it was held that the question
about the nature of the lands was pre-eminently a question
of fact and the finding being based on the evidence on
record was not liable to interference. Even then it
examined the submission advanced on behalf of appellants
that the land constituted ‘new main estate’ failing under
Section 2(9) of Act 26 of 1963. The High Court found that a
perusal of the three grants, namely Title Deed Nos. 836, 838
and 839 indicated that it was made only with reference to
the acreage and cawnies and with reference to paimaish
numbers. The High Court agreed with the appellate authority
and the Settlement Officer that the evidence clearly
established that the grant in favour of all the three other
institutions comprised lands which were interspersed with
fields which were not the subject-matter of the grant.
Therefore, a clear inference arose that the rest and the
residue of the lands of the village should also have been in
terms of acreage and cawnies and not as recognisable part or
as a factional share of the village as such. The High Court
found that this inference was strengthened by the survey
maps as well as the original paimaish register filed by the
respondent. It did not find any merit in the submission
advanced on behalf of appellant founded on the final
assessment list published in the District Gazette for the
inam lands in the Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk. The reason for
this was that the definition in Act 40 of 1956 clearly
indicated that
645
full assessment of inam lands covered not merely the whole
village inams or inam village failing within the definition
of the expression estate’ under the Estates Land Act, but
also any land the grant of which was made as an inam and
confirmed or recognised by the Government as such. The High
Court found that since the definition in Act 40 of 1956
covered both the whole inam estate and minor inam estate,
therefore, an order passed under Act 40 of 1956 levying full
assessment on inam land would cover not only inam estates
but also minor inams.
3.’Minor Inam’ under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of Act
30 of 1963 means,
“(i) any inam which is not-
(a) … ;
(b) a new inam estate as defined in clause (9) of Section 2
of the Inam Estates Abolition Act; or
(c)……
The language of sub-section (9) clearly indicates that minor
inam is something like a residuary clause. In other words
what is not inam as defined in various sub-sections shall be
deemed to be minor inam. Since it was claimed in the High
Court that the land in dispute was not minor inam only
because it was a new inam estate as defined in sub-section
(9) of Section 2 of Act 30 of 1963 it is not necessary to
extract other sub-sections of this section. ‘New Inam
Estate’ under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of Act 26 of 1963
means a part village inam estate or a Pudukkottai inam
estate. What is meant by part village inam estate is
defined by sub-section (1 1) as under:
” ‘Part village inam estate’ means a part of a
village .. the grant of which part has been
made, confirmed, or recognised by the
Government notwithstanding that subsequent to
the grant, such part has been partitioned
among the grantees or the successors-in-title
of the grantee or grantees.
Explanation I.- (a) Where the grant of a part
of a village as an inam is expressed to be a
specified fraction of, or a specified number
of shares in, a village, such part shall be
deemed to be a part village inam estate
notwithstanding that such grant refers also to
the extent of such part in terms of acreage or
cawnies, or of other local equivalent.
(b)where a grant as an inam is expressed to
be only in terms of acreage or cawnies, or of
other local equivalent, the area which forms
the subject-matter of the grant shall not be
deemed to be a part village inam estate.
Explanation II.- A part of a village granted
in inam shall be deemed to be a part village
inam estate notwithstanding that different
parts of such part village were granted,
confirmed or recognised on different dates or
by different title deeds or in favour of
different persons.”
646
Clause (b) to the Explanation 1 explains the meaning of
‘part village inam estate’. It excludes all those grants
which are in terms of acreage of cawnies. It has been found
by the High Court on appreciation of evidence that the grant
was in terms of acreage or cawnies. Since this is a finding
of fact which cannot be assailed and in fact has not been
assailed the land in, dispute could not be part village inam
estate and consequently could not be new inam estate within
meaning of sub-section (9) of Section 2 of Act 26 of 1963.
In view of this it is not necessary to examine other aspects
on which the High Court decided in favour of the respondent.
4. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. But
there shall be no order as to costs.
647