KHAJAMIAN WAKF ESTATES ETC. versus STATE OF MADRAS & ANR.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 18-11-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

790 
KHAJAMIAN WAKF Egi"ATES ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS & ANR. 
November 18, 1970 
(.T. c. SHAH, G. K. MITTER, K. s. HEGDE, A. N. G~VER 
AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, i9,SO, Art. 31A-Madras Inam Estates (Aboli-
tion ancl .Conversion into Ryotwari) Jct (26 of 1963); Madras Leaseholds 
(Abolition and Conver>ion. i111tl~yoiwari) A.ct (27 of 1963) and Madras 
Minor Inams· (Abolition and .Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act (30 of 1963) 
A 
-Legislative co1i1petie11r;y-lf yiolall~e of Arts. 14, 19, 26 and 31. 
C 
In the State of Madras there· were three types of inams namely : ( 1) 
those which constituted. of the grant of melwaram alone; (2) those which 
consisted of the grant of both melwaram and kudivaram; and (3) minor 
inams. 
By Madras loams (Assessment) Act, 1956, full assessment was 
levied on all inam lands except 
melwaram 
inams granted on service 
tenure, without affecting in .any way the rights between the inamdars and 
the persons in possessibn or enjoyment of the land. 
To complete the 
agrarian reform initiated by the Mad.ras Estates (Abolition and Conver-
sion into Ryotwari) Act,. 1948. the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition 
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 the. Madras Leaseholds (AboF· 
tion and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, and the Madras Minor 
Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 196;1, were enacted. 
Under the first, acquisition of all rights of landholders in inam estates 
D 
ahd the introduction of ryotwari settlement in such"'" estates was provided 
for. 
Section 18 of th.e Act provides that compehSation shall be deter- . E 
mind for each inam as .a whole. The second Act provides for the termi-
nation of the leases of certain leaseholds. granted by the· Government, the 
acquisition of the •ights of the l.essees in.such.leasehol&; and the introduc-
tion of ryotwari .settlement; and the third/Acfpt<,ivide$'4'ot·the acquisition 
of the rights of inamdars iri minor·: iriatµs and'.\lie;i)ritrodtiction of the 
ryotwari settlement; The Acts contain:':pr<Wisions teducliig the Habilitv 
·of the tenants in t~e ·matter of. paym~iilof':arreats ·of rent 
· 
• 
On the question of the validity of the. Acts, 
HELD : (1) The impugned. Acts.coµld not .be challeng~d as violativ~ 
of Aris; 14, 19 and 31.' They d~al with 'estates' a8 defined tn Art. 31A of 
F 
the Constitution, and provide ·for their,.ac4iiisition by the State. 
They 
seek to abolish all intermediate holders and to establish direct relationship 
between the. Government and the. occupants of the ~oncerned .lands. They 
G 
were undertaken as a part of a$farian reform and hence, the provisions 
relating· to acquisition or extingutshmenf of ·the rights of the intermediate 
holders fall within the. protective wings of Art. 3 !A.. [795 D-EJ · 
B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors. v .. State of Mysore & Anr., [1969J 
3 S.C.R. 1, followed. 
. 
· 
(2) Assuming that as· a result of the levy of full assessment under 
H 
the 1956-Act. the lands cease to ]).: inams and the ·intermediaries ceased 
to be inamdars, the lands· are siill 'estate' within the meaning! of Art. 
31 A, because, they fall under one· of the .sub-els. I, II or III · of· Art 
KHAJAMIAN WAKF 1'. MADRAS 
79 I 
A 
31A(2)(a). If the impugned legislation can be traced to a valid legisla-
tive. power the fact that the Lrgislature wrongly described some of the· 
intermediaries sought to be removed does not make the law invalid. 
B 
c 
1795 E-lil 
(3) In the absence of any material to the contrary, the court mus 
proceed on the basis that the President had given his assent to the bills 
after duly considering the implication of the provisions contained therein. 
[796 E-Gl 
{ 4) If the arrears of rent are treated as rent then the State Legi91a-
turc has power to legislate with respect to the liability of tenants to pay 
the arrears, under Entry 18 of List II, VII Schedule. If they are con-
sidered as debts due . from agriculturists then the State Legislature has 
competence .to legislate under Entry 30 of the same list. [796 G-H; 797 A]' 
(5) In the case of the first of the impugned Acts, assuming that for 
some of the properties included in the inam no compensation was provid-
ed, Art. 31A bars the plet that there was contravention of Art". 31(2). 
[796 C-D!, 
(6) Jn regard to the inams belonging to the religious and charitable 
institutions, the impugned Acts do not provide for payment. of compensa-
tion in a lumpsum but provision is made to pay " portion of the com· 
pcnsati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.