Holding

The land, though recorded as private, had been converted into ryoti land by the institution's conduct, rendering the tenants ryots entitled to ryotwari patta, subject to obligations to maintain the institution.

Summary

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed a Special Tribunal order that granted a ryotwari patta to a religious institution over land cultivated by numerous tenants. The Court first held that, under Article 136, it could entertain the appeal even though the State had not previously appealed the Tribunal's order. It then examined whether the land was "private" or "ryoti" under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and the Estates Land Act, 1908. Relying on statutory presumptions and the evidence that the institution had leased the land to tenants and collected rent, the Court concluded that the land had been converted into ryoti land, making the tenants ryots entitled to ryotwari patta. The tenants were also directed to continue supporting the institution by delivering a stipulated amount of paddy annually. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, confirming the tenants' right to ryotwari patta subject to the maintenance obligation.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a special leave appeal by the State despite the State not having filed an appeal against the Special Tribunal's order.
Whether the land in question constitutes "private land" or "ryoti land" under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and the Estates Land Act, 1908.
Whether the tenants are entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 9 of the 1963 Act.
Whether the religious institution's claim of ownership as private land is valid given its conduct of leasing the land to tenants.
Whether the tenants, if granted ryotwari patta, must bear obligations to maintain the religious institution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 39(b)
Estates Land Act, 1908s. 185, s. 3(15), s. 3(1)(b)
Madras Estate Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947s. 3-A
Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963s. 3(13), s. 3(7), s. 65, s. 9

Subjects

Inam estatesRyotwari pattaPrivate landTenant rightsArticle 39(b)Article 136Special leaveReligious institutionLand conversionCultivation testEconomic empowerment

Judgment

STATE OF TAMIL NADU A
v.
HIS HOLINESS SRILLA SRI AMBALAVANA PANDARA
SANNADHI ADHEENAKARTHA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 22, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Ac~ 1963/ Estate Land Act 1908 :

Ss. 3(7), 3(13) 9 and 65/ ss. 3(1)(b), 3(15) and 185-"Inam es-
c
tate"-Tenants in cultivating possession orRe/igious Institution claiming
ownership thereof-Both the religious institution and the tenants claiming for
ryoti patta-Held, the suit land was an existing estate-Religious institution
has converted the land by its conduct as a ryoti land and has given the land
on lease to the tenants and was collecting rent from them-Tenants became D
ryots who ever since remained in possession as ryots and, therefore, are
entitled to ryotwari patta-However, they are liable to maintain the Institution
and the temple-Every tenant shall deliver to Adheenam every year three
quintals of paddy per acre.

Constitution of India, 1950 : E

Article 39(b}-Material resources of community--Distribution
of-Tenants in cultivating possession of Inam land-Held tenants are ti/lei~
of the soil dnd have fundamental right to economic empowerment under
Article 39(b) which enjoins distribution of material resources to accord socio F
economic justice and means for development for social status and dignity of
person.

Article 136-Appeaf-Held, Supreme Court has power even to entertain
an appeal against order of Tribunal which stood confirmed in the judgment
of Special Tribunal. G
T.S.Pl.P. Chidambaram Chettiar v. T.KB. Santhanaramaswami
Odayar & Ors., (1968] 2 SCR 754 and Pollisetti Pullamma & Ors. v. Kalluri
Rameswaramma & Ors., (1990] Snpp. 2 SCR 393, relied on.

Periannan & Ors. v. Airabadeeswarar Soundaranayagi Amman Kovi/ H
161
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A of O'Sirnvayal by its trnstees MA.R. Periannan Chettiar & Ors., AIR (1952)
Madras 323, held no longer a good law.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15523 of
1996 Etc.

B From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.88 of the Madras High
Court in S.T.A. No. 8 of 1982.

V. Krishnamurthy, (V. Ramasubramaniam) for Arputham, Aruna &
Co. For the Appellant.

C R. Sundervardan, S. Balakrishnan and Ms. Lily Thomas for the
Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.
D
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Special
Tribunal of Madras in S.T. Appeal No. 8of1982, dated November 15, 1988,
by two learned Judges of the Madras high Court under the Tamil Nadu
loam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26
E of 1963) (for short, the 'Act'). The admitted facts are that respondents 3
to 438 are the cultivating tenants of the lands in Kodarangulam village,
which is an estate under the Act. It was admittedly notified and taken over
under the Act; as a result, the respondents as well as the first respondent
came to file application under Section 9 of the Act for issuance of ryotwari
patta. The Tribunal granted patta to the first respondent and on special
F appeal, the High Court had confirmed the same. It would appear that some
of the tenants had filed special leave petitions on earlier occasion also, but
the same came to be summarily dismissed. The State has come up by
special leave with permission against the judgment of the Special Tribunal.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
G Shri R. Sunderavardan, learned senior counsel appearing for the first
respondent, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the
appeal on the ground that the State did not file any appeal against the
order of the Tribunal and that, therefore, it cannot file appeal against the
Special Tribunal's judgment. Though technically he is right, but this Court
H has power under Article 136 of the Constitution, even to entertain an
STA1Ev.HISHOUNESSSRILL\SRIAMBAIAVANAPANDARASANNADHIADHEENAKAR1HA 163

appeal against the original order of the Tribunal, which stood confirmed A
in the judgment of the Special Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Per-
mission was granted to file the special leave. Under these circumstances,
we do not see any force in the contention on the maintainability of the
appeal.

It is contended for the appeallant-State that by operation of the B
definition of "private land" under Section 3(13) of the Act read with Section
3(1)(b) of the Estates Land Act, 1908 and in view of the presumptions
drawn under Section 185 of the Estates Land Act and Section 65 of the
Act, the land is presumed to be ryoti land and the tenant in occupation is
a ryot unless the first respondent proves that it is a private land, the c
cultivation test is one of the important criteria, apart from other considera-
tion, since the tenants have been in continuous possession for a long period.
It must be presumed that the land is a ryoti land. As a consequence, the
tenants are ryots. Accordingly, they are entitled to ryotwari patta under
Section 9 of the Act. On the other. hand, it is the contention of Shri
Sunderavardan, learned senior counsel that both Melwaram and D
Kudivaram rights have been retained by the first respondent. It has been
asserting its own right as a full owner. It is a freehold land as confirmed
in the Inams Fair Register maintained by the Inams Commissioner as early
as in 1864. Consequently, it is a private land. It is not necessary that the
first respondent, being a religious institution, should personally cultivate E
the land. By operation of the Amendment Act 27 of 1966, the cultivation
test, as regards religious institutions, has been dispensed with. Consequent-
ly, the ryotwari patta granted under Section 9 to the first respondent is
valid in law. In view of the diverse contentions, the question that arises for
consideration is : whether the respondent-tenants are entitled to ryotwari
patta or the ryotwari patta granted to the first respondent is in accordance
F
with law? With a view to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to look
into certain definitions under the Act. Section 3(7) defines "inam estate" to
mean "an existing inam estate or a new inam estate".

"Section 3(13) defines "private land" thus : G
"(i) in relation to an existing inam estate shall have the same
meaning as in sub-clause (b) of clause (10) of Section 3 of the
Estates Land Act and

(ii) in relation to a new inam estate shall mean the domain or H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A home-farm land of the landholder, by whatever designation known,
such as kambattam, khas, sir or pannai; or ......."

Section 2(16) defines "ryot" thus :

"(i) in relation to an existing inam estate shall have the same
B meaning as in clause (15) of Section 3 of the Estate land Act, and

(ii) in relation to a new inam estate shall mean a person who holds
for the purpose of agriculture ryoti land in such estate on condition
of paying to the landholder the rent which is legally due upon it.
c
Explanation is not necessary for the purpose of this case.

Section 9 deals with grant of ryotwari patta. Sub-section (1) of
Section 9 envisages thus :

D "9. (1) In the case of an existing inam estate, the landholder shall,
with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari
patta in respect of -

(a) all lands which immediately before the notified date -

E (i) belonged to him as private land within the meaning of sub-
clause (b) of clause ( 10) of Section 3 of the Estates Land Act, or

(ii) stood recorded as private land in a record prepared under the
provisions of Chapter XI or Chapter XII of the said Act :

F Provided that the private land referred to in sub-clause (i) and
(ii) -

(1) has not been subsequently converted into ryoti land or has not
been finally held to be ryoti land under Section 3-A of the Madras
Estate Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Madras Act XXX of
G
1947; and

(2) 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
H three years within a period of twelve year immediately before the
SfATEv.HISHOUNF$SRILlASRIAMBALA.VANAPANDARASANNAOHIADHEENAKAR1HA 165

1st day of April, 1960; aod A
(b)(i) all lands which were properly included or which ought to
have been properly included in the holding of the ryot and which
have been acquired by the landholder by the inheritance or suc-
cession under a will, provided that the laodholder has cultivated
such lands himself by his own servants or by hired labour with his B
own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, from the
date of such acquisition or the 1st day of July 1950, whichever is
later and has been in direct continuous possession of such lands
from such later date;

(ii) all laods which were properly included, or which ought to have
c
been properly included, in the holding of a ryot and which have
been acquired by the landlord by purchase, exchaoge or gift,
including purchase and sale for arrears of rent, provided that the
landholder has cultivated such laods himself, by his own servaots
or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary D
course of husbandry, from the 1st day of July, 1950, aod has been
' in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date;

(iii) all lands (not being (i) lands of the description specified in
sub-clause (a), (b) and (c) of clause (16) ofSection3 of the Estates E
Land Act, or (ii) forest lands) which have been voluntarily aban-
doned or relinquished by a ryot, or which have never been in the
occupation of a ryot, provided that the landlord has cultivated such
laods himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own
or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, from the 1st
day of July, 1950 aod has been in direct and continuous possession F
of such laods from that date.

Sub-section (2) of Section 9 reads as under :

"(2). In the case of a new inam estate the landholder shall, with
effect on and from the notified da\e, be entitled to a ryotwari patta G
in respect of •

(a) all Iaods which irmnediately before the notified date belonged
to him as private Iaod :

Provided that in the case of private land specified in clause H
166 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A (G)(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 or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, for a
continuous period of three years within a period of twelve years
immediately before the 1st day of April 1960; and

B (b)(i) all lands in the holding of a ryot and which have been
acquired by the landholder by inheritance or succession under a
wil~ provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself,
by his own servants or by hired labour with his own or hired stock,
in the ordinary course or husbandry, from the date of such acquisi-
tion or the 1st day of April, 1960, whichever is later and has been
c in direct and continuous possession of such lands from such later
date;

(ii) all lands in the holding or ryot and which have been acquired
.by the landholder by purchase, exchange or gift, including purchase
at a sale for arrears of rent, provided that the landholder has
D
cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired
labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of •
husbandry, from the 27th day of September, or from the date of
such acquisition whichever is later and has been in direct and
continuous possession of such lands from such later date :
E
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall apply to any
acquisition by purchase, exchange or gift including purchase ~t a
sale for arrears of rent by the landholder on or after the 1st day
of April, 1960.

F (iii) all lands (not being (i) lands of the description specified in
items (a), (b) and (c) of the sub-clause (ii) of clause (17) of Section
2, or (ii) forest lands) which have been voluntarily abandoned or
relinquished by a ryot, or which have never been in the occupation
of ryot, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands
himself, by his own s~rvants or by hired labour, with his own or
G hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, from the 27th
day of September, 1955, and has been in direct and continuous
possession of such lands from that date."

It would, thus, be seen that a ryot in an estate defined under clause
H (15) of Section 3 of the Estates Land Act and if he is new ryot, it is defined
STAlEv.HISHOUNESSSRILlASRIAMBALAVANAPANDARASANNADHIADHEENAKARlHA 167
under sub-clause (b) of clause (16) of sub- section (2) of the Act. Though A
there is a dispute as to whether it is a new estate or an existing estate, in
view of the clinching evidence on record, we have no hesitation to conclude
that it is an existing estate. In the judgment under appeal, the learned
Judges have referred to the confirmation of title deed by Inams Commis-
sioner on September 10, 1864 wherein it was recorded that the title deed B
relates to the "whole village of Kodarangulam and its hamlets as whole
village" and its annual quit rent was Rs. 2,810 inclusive of the jodi already
charged on the land. Thus, it is clear that it was an existing estate, but not
a new estate as presumed by the learned Judges in the High Court. The
question then is : whether the tenants are ryots within the meaning of
Section 3(15) of the Estates Land Act? The said section reads as under : C
"3(15). "Ryot" means a person who holds for the purpose of
agriculture ryoti land in an estate on condition of paying to the
landholder the rent which is legally due upon it."

Section 3(16) defines ryot land means cultivable land in an estate D
other than private land, but does not include -

(a) beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or
irrigation channels;)

(b) threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village sites, and other lands E
situated in any estate which are set apart for the common use of
the villagers;

(c) lands granted on service tenure either free of rent or on
favourable rates of rent if granted before the passing of this Act
F
or free of rent if granted after that date, so long as the service
tenure subsists."

R yoti land means entirab/e lands in an estate by a ryot who holds it
for agriculture on condition of paying rent to the land-holder which is
legally due other than private land. G
Section 185 draws a presumption that the land in an Inam village is
not private land. Similarly, Section 65 of the Act draws a presumption that
it is a ryofi land unless it is proved that it is a private land.

The question therefore, is : whether it is a private land? "Private land" H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A has been defined under Section 3(1) of the Estates Land Act, which reads
as under:

"(a) in the case of an estate within the meaning of (sub-clause (a),
(b), (c) or (e) of clause (2) means the domain or home-farm land
or the landholder by whatever designation known, such as, kam-
B battam, khas, sir or pannai, and includes all land which is proved
to have been cultivated as private land by the landholder himself,
by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock,
for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the
commencement of this Act; and
c (b) in the case of an estate within the meaning of sub- clause (d)
of clause (2), means -

(i) the domain or home-farm land or the landholder, by whatever
designation known, such as kambattam, khas, sir or pannai; or
D
(ii) land which is proved to have been cultivated as private land
by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour,
with his own or hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve years,
immediately before the first day of July 1908, provided that the
landholder has retained the kudivaram ever since and has not
E converted the land into ryoti land; and

(iii) land which is proved to have been cultivated by the landholder
himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or
hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve years immediately
F before the first day of November, 1933, provided that the
landholder has retained the kudivaram ever since and has not
converted the land into ryoti land; or

A reading of it would clearly indicate that in the case of an estate
within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 2 "private land" means the
G domain or home-farm land of the landholder of whatever designation
known, such as karnbattam, khas, sir or pannai or the land which is proved
to have been cultivated as private land by the landholder himself, by his
own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, for a
continuous period of twelve years, immediately before the first day of July,
H 1908, provided that the landholder has retained the kudivaram ever since
STAIBv.HISHOUNES3SRri.uSRIAMBAl.AVANAPANDARASANNADHIADHEENAKAR1HA 169
and has not converted the land into ryoti land. The question, therefore, is : A
whether the first respondent, though it was declared as a freehold land, had
converted it into a ryoti land? It is seen that there is overwhelming evidence
on record to establish that the tenants have been in possession of the land
for a long period and ever since they have been cultivating the land.

In T.S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar v. T.K.B. Santhanaramaswami B
Ordayar & Ors., [1968) 2 SCR 754 at 765, this Court had held thus :

"It seems to us that the definition reads as a whole indicates clearly
that the ordinary test for 'private land' is the test of retention by
the landholder for his personal use and cultivation, by him or under C
his personal supervision. No doubt, such lands may be let on short
leases for the convenience of the landholder without losing their
distinctive character; but it is not the intention or the scheme of
the Act to treat as private those lands with reference to which the
only peculiarity is the fact that the landlord owns both the warms
in the lands and has been letting them out on short term leases. D
There must, in our opinion, he something in the evidence either
by way of proof of direct cultivation or by some clear indication
of an intent to regard these lands as retained for the personal use
of the landholder as his establishment in order to place those lands
in the special category of private lands in which a tenant under the E
Act cannot acquire occupacy rights. In the present case, there is
no proof that the lands were ever directly cultivated by the
landholder. Admittedly, soon after the grant of 1862, the estate
came under the administration of Receivers, who always let out
the lands to the tenants to be cultivated."
F
In Pollisetti Pul/amma & Ors. v. Kalluri Rameswaramma & Ors.,
[1990) Supp. 2 SCR 393, this Court had held that. the ratio of the Full Bench •
of the Madras High Court in Periannan & Ors. v. Airabadeeswarar Soun-
daranayagi Amman Kovil of O'Siruvayal /Jy its truestees MA.R Periannan
Chettiar & Ors., AIR (1952) Madras 323 was held no longer good law in G
the light of the ratio in Chidambaram Chettiar's case (supra). The same was
also reiterated in later decisions.

It is seen from the evidence on record that there is overwhelming
evidence that the tenants have been cultivating the land and ever since they
are in possession, though the first respondent had filed a suit against them H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A for eviction and other reliefs. In those suits, it was admitted that they were
cultivating the land as tenants and committed default in paying rent. On
that admission, the necessary conclusion is that the first respondent has
converted the lands by its conduct as a ryoti land and the tenants have
kudivaram rights and given the land on leasehold to the tenants and was
B collecting the rent from them. The tenants are the tillers of the soil and
have fundamental right to economic empowerment under Article 39(b)
which enjoins distribution of material resources to accord socio-economic
justice and means for development for social status and dignity of persons.
Land is a source of livelihood. There is a strong linkage between the land
and social status. The strip of the land on which the till and live assures
C them social justice and dignity of person provjding near decent means of
livelihood. So, economic empowerment is their fundamental right. They
became the ryots and, ever since, remained in possession as ryots. There-
fore, they are entitled to ryotwari patta.

D It is seen that the first respondent had purchased the land for the
maintenance of the Math as well as the temple. Under these circumstances,
it is necessary that the Institution and the temple are required to be
maintained. Though the tenant/respondents are entitled to the ryotwari
patta, they should be burdened with the liability to maintain the institution
and the temple. As a consequence, we direct that every tenant shall deliver,
E regularly, to the Adheenam, the first respondent, every year, three quintals
of paddy per acre within fifteen days after the harvest. In the event of their
committing default in delivery of the three quintals of paddy per acre, they
are liable to and shall pay interest at the rate of 21 % from the date of
default till date of payment. In the event of their committing further default
in making the payment with interest, if the Institution is driven to lay the
F
suit for recovery of the same, they should also be liable to pay, apart from
the costs to be incurred for the recovery of the said amount, exemplary
costs for the institution of the suit for recovery of the amount. With these
conditions,· the respondent-tenants are entitled to grant of ryotwari patta
under Section 9 of the Act.
G
The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstance, without
costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.