TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. No. 75, Athaloor Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Thanjavur District. The decision of the tribunIals : Before the primary tribunal, the respondent temple claimed patta under Section 9 as the landholder, Dr. Devadoss (hereinafter called the appellant lor convenience) claimed ryotwari patta on the basis that he was having the Kudikani or kudivaram rights. He examined himself us PW 1 and five other witnesses as PW 2 to 6. The temple examined its accountant as RW 1. The appellant claimed that he cultivated the land under orders of the Collector under the Grow More Food Scheme, spent ₹ 5,000 and brought the rocky and waste land under cultivation from 1944 onwards. In his evidence, he stated that he did not know that the Second of Rights showed that the land belonged to the temple. He had not filed any document to show that he came into possession through proceedings of the Collector under the Grow More Food Campaign. Except to say he was cultivating the land. He admitted he had no document to prove Kudikani rights nor were there any muchilakas executed by the temple in his favour. He expressed ignorance of the fact that the Revenue Divisional Record described him as a 'te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore denied that the temple was the landlord on that the appellant was only a tenant. The application No. 23/72 of the temple above stated was allowed and it was held that the appellant was only a tenant. That order has become final. The other document produced as additional evidence was the tenancy Register which again showed the appellant only as a tenant. The appellate Tribunal thus relied on the additional evidence produced by the appellant to hold against the appellant. Appellant relied upon the statutory presumption in Section 65 of the 1963 Act to say that the land must be presumed to be ryoti. The appellate Tribunal said that in the present case, it has been proved clearly that the entire properties mentioned in the appeal are the private properties, belonging to the Respondent. Further, it has been proved by the Respondent through documentary evidence, that the appel-lant has been cultivating the entire properties mentioned in the appeal, in the capacity as a tenant only. The appellate Tribunal also relied on the amendment by T.N. Act 27 of 1966 relating to exemption in favour of temple from provilling self-cultivation and observed : We could grant exemption to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Act 27/66 was not to grant any exemption in favour of religious institutions and they had to prove personal cultivation for 3 years before 1.4.1960. It was also contended that the temple must prove self cultivation as required by the decisions of this Court in Pollisetti Pullamma v. Kalluri Kameswaramma, AIR (1991) SC 604, Chidambaram Chettiar v. Santhanaramaswami Odayar Others, [1968] 2 SCR 754 and P. Venkataswamy v. Dr. S. Rami Reddy, [1976] 3 SCC 665. Counsel also relied upon the presumption in Section 65 of the Act 26/63 to the effect that land in an estate was ryoti land, unless the contrary was proved and also relied upon sub-clause (2) of Section 65 which states that certain expressions to the effect that a tenant had no occupancy right etc. in leases executed before 19.4.49 would be inadmissible. Counsel, also referred to sub-clause (3) of Section 65 to the effect that such expression in leases executed after 19.4.49 would not by themselves be sufficient to prove that the land was private land at the commencement of tenancy. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Sri A.T.M. Sampath that, before the lower tribunal and the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtenant to manors or castles, such a principle of self cultivation of lands around manors could not be extended to landholders in whose favour grants of whole villages (which were brought under the definition of estate in 1936) were made nor to parts of main villages which now under Madras Act 26/1963 are to be treated as new inam estates. The legislature must have known that these small landholders had to manors. Nor could, it is argued for the respondent, a deity in a temple be equated with an English hopleman having manors and land appurtenant thereto. It was also pointed out that the case decided by the Privy Council in Mallikarjune Prasad V. Somayya's case (ILR 42 Mad. 400 (PC)) which affirmed the decision of the Madras High Court in Zamindar of Chellapalli v. Rujakapati Sumayya, (ILR 39 Mad. 341) and which was relied upon by this Court in Chidambaram Chettiar's case [1968] 2 SCR 754, was as case of conversion of ryoti land into private land for which actual cultivation had to be proved and it was not a case where Section 3(10) fell for interpretation. This aspect was pointed out by Satyanarayana Rao, J, in the Full Bench case (at p. 329). It was also contended that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the T.N. Act 26/63 has been set out in detail in two decisions of this Court in Khajamian Wakf Estates Etc. v. State of Madras and Another, [1970] 3 SCC 894 and in S. Thenappa Chettiar Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1986] 2 SCC 275 where the vires of the Act and its amendment of 1969, respectively, were upheld. There is an elaborate discussion in these rulings about melvaram and kudivaram rights and rights of ryots in ryoti land under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, its amendment in 1936 and the Madras Estates (Abolition Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and about different types of inam estates and their abolition from time to time. Existing and new inam estates : Under the T.N. Act 26 of 1963, estates which were sought to be abolished and converted into ryotwari and for which ryotwari paltas were proposed to be granted related to existing inam estates and new inam estates. Section 2(4) defined existing inam estates ax an inam village which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936 while new inam estate was defined in Section 2(9) as 'part village inam estate or a pudukottai inam estate'. Section 2(11) defined par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant of ryotwari patta in respect of. (a) all land which immediately before the notified date belonged to him as private land; provided that in the case of private land specified in clause 13(ii)(a) of Section 2, such land is proved to have been cultivated by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, for a continuous period of three years within a period to twelve years immediately before the 1st day of April, 1960;......... We are here concerned with the proviso in Section 9(2)(a) which, for the purpose of proof of private land under Section 2(13)(ii)(a), permits proof of cultivation for 3 years out of 12 years before 1.4.1960. The next question is whether, by virtue of the Amending Act 27/66, even the requirement of 3 years cultivation was dispensed with, so far as claims for ryotwari patta by temples under Section 9(2)(a)? We shall accordingly refer to the amendment brought out by the T.N. Amendment Act 27/66 which amended Act 23/63. Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the amending Act 27 of 1966 brought into force the following amendments to Section 9(1)(a) and Section 9(2)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivision concerned. In view of this, the religious institutions have not been carrying on pannai cultivation and conse-quently they will not be satisfying the requirement of the provisos referred to above, this causes undue hardship to such institutions and it is proposed not to insist on personal cultivation for three years for the purpose of grant of ryotwari patta in the case of private lands of religious institutions governed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownments Act, 1959. The bill seeks to achieve the above objects. It is therefore seen from the said Statement of Objects and Reasons that an exemption from personal cultivation became necessary in respect of temples for proving land as private land, inasmuch as, temples were, under the Rules made under the Madras HR CE Act, 1959 prohibited from having pannai cultivation except with permission of competent authority. Whether Statement of Objects Reasons of Act 27/66 could be looked into : Question arises, naturally whether the Court can refer to the State-ment of Objects and Reasons mentioned in a Bill when it is placed before the Legislature and even if it is permissible, to what extent the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of 12 years immediately before 1.4.1960 was not required, for purposes of grant of ryotwari patta to the temple under Section 9(2)(a). In our opinion, the tribunals below and the High Court were right in applying the Amending provisions of Act 27/1966 so far as the respondent- temple was concerned, we may add that the judgment of the Madras High Court in Shammugham's case (1997) 1 L.W. 287 in so far as it had taken the same view mentioned by us in this judgment, to that extent, is correct. The presumption under Section 65, if rebutted : Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly relied on the statutory presumption in Section 65 of the T.N. Act 26/1963 to the effect that land is to be presumed to be ryoti land unless it is proved to be private land by the landholder. Section 65 reads as follows : S. 65(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), when in any proceeding under this Act it becomes necessary to determine whether any land is a ryoti land or a priavate land, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such land is a ryoti land. (2)(i) any expression in a lease, patta or the like executed or issued on or after the 1st day of Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... du Act 27 of 1966, enacted with a definite purpose and aim and the legislature in our view, achieved the same effectively by excepting the religious institutions from the necessity to prove personal cultivation for the required period unlike the other class or category of landholders and the efficacy of the amendments introduced to Section 9 which relates to the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of a landholder religious institutions, does not in any way depend upon any further amendment being made to Section 2(13) of the Act. Irrespective of the definition clause in Section 2(13) and the criteria laid down therein, it is always open to the legisla-ture, to carve out a distinct class in the operative provisions of the Act by way of exception to meet out a special treatment. and referred to the opening words in Section 2, unless the context otherwise requires. In our view, the approach of the High Court in this behalf is perfectly justified. If therefore, we go by the exemption carved out in the body of Section 9(2)(a), then the said provision itself helps the temple so far as new inam estates with which we are concerned, to rebut the presumption in Section 65(1) of the Act 26/19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
