Nellore Bujjanna And Another v. The Tahsildar, Rapur Taluk, Rapur And Another

Ramachandra Rao, J.:— A full Bench of three judges consisting of Alladi Kuppuswami, Lakshmayya and P.A Chowdary, JJ. has by order Dt. 27-4-1979 referred to a larger Full Bench consisting of five judges for deciding the following question:

“Whether the decision of the Full Bench in Y. Veeramma v. R. Surudamma (1) A.I.R 1972 A.P 161 is correct or not in so far as it decides that the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act No. XXXVII of 1956 does not effect the effacement of the inam tenure from the date of passing of the Act and the conversion into ryotwari tenure takes place from the date of grant by ryotwari patta”.

2. The relevant facts which have given rise to this reference are as follows:— With a view to abolish all zamindaries and estates as defined in the Madras Estate Land Act No. 1 of 1908, the Madras Estates (Now Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act No. XXVI of 1948 was enacted. The definition of “estate” in the said Act as amended from time to time, applies to whole inam villages and to marginal inams of hamlets and Khandrigas in inam villages. Other inams in inam villages, and in ryotwari and zamindar villages are not covered by the said legislation, and the Government decided to undertake separate legislation with a view to converting them into ryotwari tenure. In order to implement the said policy, the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. No. XXXVII of 1956 (herein after called ‘the Act’) was enacted providing for conversion of all inam lands (other than inams constituting estates under the Estates Abolition Act) into ryotwari tenure. The main scheme or object of the Act is to convert inam lands, known as minor inams, situated in zamindari or ryotwari or inam villages into ryotwari tenure and confer ryotwari pattas on the inamdars and/or the tenants as provided in the Act. In respect of inam land in Zamindari or ryotwari villages, the inamdar is entitled to get a ryotwari patta for the said inam land. In the case of inam lands in inam villages, if the inam lands are held by inamdars other than religious, charitable and educational institutions, the tenant in occupation on 7-1-1948 or in the absence of such a tenant the tenant in occupation of the land on the date of the commencement of the Act will be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of ⅔rds of the land in his occupation and the inamdar is entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of the remaining ⅓rd in the case of inam lands held by religious, charitable and educational institutions and which are in inam villages, the institutions concerned are entitled to get a ryotwari patta but the tenants in occupation are conferred rights of occupancy in the said land and are made transferable and heritable. Various other provisions have been made in the Act with regard to holding of an enquiry for determining the nature of the land and the person or institution holding the said land and for determination of the persons who are entitled to grant of ryotwari pattas. Detailed reference will be made to the relevant provisions of the Act hereafter while dealing with the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. In Appanna v. Mulayya (2) 1968 (1) An. W.R 72, the question arose as to on what date the inams were abolished and converted into ryotwari tenure under the provisions of the Act. Gopalrao Ekbote, J. (as he then was) took the view that the Act abolishes the inams and converts them into ryotwari tenures on the date when the Act came into force, i.e, on 14-12-1956. This decision was carried in appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Krishna Rao and Parthasarathi, JJ. held in Mulayya v. Appanna (3) 1969 (2) An. W.R 343 that the conversion of the inam tenure into ryotwari takes place only on the grant of a ryotwari patta and not from the date of commencement of the Act. The same question again arose for consideration before a Full Bench of this court on a reference made by a Division Bench, and the Full Bench comprising of Narasimham, J. (as he then was), and Vaidya and Parthasarathi, JJ. held in Y. Veeramma v. R. Surudamma (1) Supra, that the Act does not effect the effacement of the inam tenure from the date of the passing of the Act but merely enables the conversion of a tenure under the procedure prescribed under the Act, and that the conversion of the inam tenure into ryotwari tenure will take effect from the date of the grant of the ryotwari patta.

4. Subsequent to the aforesaid Full Bench decision, the inam Abolition Act was amended by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1975 Act 20 of 1975. One of the Amendments introduced is section 2-A to provide for the vesting in Government of certain communal and other categories of lands in inams. Section 2-A reads as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all communal lands and porambokes, grazing lands waste lands, mines and quarries: tanks, tank-beds, and irrigation works, streams and rivers, fisheries and ferries in the inam lands shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances”.

5. Pursuant to the said section, notices were issued to several inamdars by the concerned officers of the Government stating that the several categories of lands enumerated in Section 2-A of the Act had vested in the Government and calling upon them to surrender possession of the same. The petitioners, who are inamdars, have filed these writ petitions challenging the said noticed on various grounds. It is contended inter alia that section 2-A of the Act is unconstitutional as no compensation is payable for the rights of the inamdars in inam lands acquired by the Government under section 2-A. Another contention raised is that even if Section 2-A is constitutionally valid, it applies only to several categories of lands situated in inam lands; and that on the date of coming into force of the inams Abolition Act 1956, i.e on 14-12-1956, the inam lands became converted into ryotwari tenure and therefore section 2-A will not apply to the lands in such inams lands which became ryotwori. This batch of writ petitions came up for hearing before Kondaiah, J. (as he then was) and Raghuvir, J. It was contended for the Government that in view of the Full Bench decision in Veeramma v. Surudamme (1) the inam tenure did not stand abolished on the date of coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act and that inam tenure continues till a ryotwari patta is granted to the inamdar or the tenant in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Section 2-A applies to the several categories of lands mentioned in the said section. The learned judges expressed the view that the decisions of the lull bench in Veeramma v. Surudamma (1) required reconsideration and accordingly, the writ petitions were referred to a Full Bench of there judges, and the Full Bench of three Judges have referred the question to larger Bench of five judges and accordingly, these writ petitions have come before us.

6. The main question that arises for consideration is, whether the inam tenure of inam lands stood abolished and got converted into ryotwari tenure on the date of coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act or on the date of grant of a ryotwari patta?

7. In order to determine this question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Under section 1(3), the Act comes into force at once. The Act having been published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 14-12-1956, it came into fore on that date. Section 1(2) makes the Act applicable to inam lands mentioned in Clause (c) of Section 2. Clause (c) of Section 2 defines Inam lands as any land in respect of which the grant in inam has been made, confirmed or recognized by the Government but does not include an inam constituting an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. Section 3 provides for an enquiry by the Tahsildar for determining:

(i) Whether a particular land in his jurisdiction is an inam land:

(ii) Whether such inam land is in ryotwari, zamindari or inam village; and

(iii) Whether such inam land is held by any institution.

8. An institution is defined in Sec. 2(e) as “A religious, a charitable or an educational institution”. The said section further provides for an appeal to the Revenue Court and the order of the Revenue Court is made final and it becomes binding on all persons and institutions claiming an interest in such inam lands. The marginal note of section 4 is “conversion of inam lands into ryotwari lands”. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 4 provides that in the case of inam land in a ryotwari or a zamindari village, the person or institution holding such lands as inamdar on the date of the commencement of the Act, shall be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect there of. In the case of inam lands in inam villages sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 4 provides for three classes of cases. Clause (a) of the sub-section provides that if the inam land is held by an institution on the date of commencement of the Act such institution shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land. Clause (b) provides that if such land is held by an inamdar other than an institution on the date of commencement of the Act and is in his actual occupation on the said date, the tenant who is declared to be in occupation of that land on 7-1-1948 by the Revenue Court under section 5(3) or by the Collector under section 5(5) as the case may be, shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta for two thirds share of that land, and the inamdar shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta for the remaining one-third share thereof; and if no tenant has filed an application before the Revenue Court under sub-section (2) of section 5 within the period specified therein, the inamdar shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of the land. The third class of cases is dealt with by clause (c) which provides that if the inam land is held by an inamdar other than an institution on the date of commencement of the Act, but is in the occupation of a tenant on the said date, the tenant, who is decided to be in occupation under section 5(3) or section 5(5) shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta for two-thirds share, and the inamdar for the remaining one-third share; but if no tenant has filed an application under section 5(2), the tenant in occupation of the land on the date of commencement of the Act shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta for two-thirds share and the inamdar shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta for the remaining on a-third share thereof. Sub-section (3) of section 4 further provides that the one-third share of the inam land in the occupation of the tenant in respect of which the inamdar is entitled to a ryotwari patta under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 4, shall be deemed to be the compensation payable to the inamdar in lieu of the extinguishment of his rights in the two-thirds share of such land. Section 5 provides for reinstatement of tenants who were in occupation of inam, lands in inam villages on 7-1-1948 but were evicted from such lands before the commencement of the Act, by filing an application in that behalf before the Revenue Court. Section 6 provides for determination of the particular portion of the land to be given to the inamdar towards his one-third share. The grant of a ryotwari patta is provided for in section 7. Under this section, the Tahsildar may suo motu, and shall on an application by a person or an institution, determine the persons or institutions entitled to ryotwari pattas in the accordance with the provisions of section 4 and grant them ryotwari pattas in the prescribed form. It also provides for an appeal to the Revenue Court against the order of the Tahsildar. Sub-section (5) of section 7 of the Act further provides that in the case of inam lands held by an Inamdar other than an institution in an Inam village, no tenant or inamdar shall be granted a ryotwari patta until the decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (3) or the Collector under Sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 5 is given. Section 8(1) confers a right of permanent occupancy on the tenants in occupation of inam lands in inam villages held by an institution in the inam villages. Sub-section (2) of that section renders any tenant having a right of permanent occupancy, liable for eviction on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (1) & (2) thereof. Section 9 lays down the procedure for evicting the tenants having rights of permanent occupancy on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 8. Section 10 empowers the institution to lease out the inam land when a tenant is evicted under section 9. Section 11(1) makes the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 applicable to the tenancies in respect of inam lands governed by the Act, but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), section 8 and section 9. Sub-section (2) of section 11 provides that in respect of Inam lands or any part thereof, if the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the case may be, considers that the person in occupation of such land or part thereof, is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect thereof under Section 4, no order for his eviction from such land or part, shall be passed under the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 until it finally decided that he is not entitled to a ryotwari patta thereto under Section 4. Section 12 makes every person or institution receiving a ryotwari patta under the Act in respect of an inam land, liable to pay to the government the ryotwari Assessment as provided therein with effect on and from the date of grant of ryotwari patta. Section 13 confers powers of a civil court in certain matters on the Tahsildar, Revenue Court and the Collector Section 14 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts from challenging the decision of the Tahsildar, the Revenue Court or the Collector under the Act except where such decision is obtained by misrepresentations fraud or collusion. Section 15 gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act.

9. From the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it will be seen that the object of the Act is to abolish and convert inam tenures into ryotwari tenures. There is no specific provision in the Act expressly stating that the abolition and conversion of the inam land into ryotwari tenure will take place on the date of commencement of the Act or on any other date. No doubt section 1(3) of the Act states that the Act shall come into force at once, but the question still arises for consideration as to whether the inam land stood abolished and got converted into ryotwari tenure on the date of commencement of the Act or on a later date.

10. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the learned counsel, it is necessary to notice the distinction between an inam tenure and a ryotwari tenure. In Maclean's Manual of Madras Administration, the meaning of inams is given as follows:—

“An Inam means ordinarily a gift by a superior to an inferior. In the south of India it is applied to the grant by the State (either originally or taking up a grant made by a village community) of the permanent right in one case to occupy land without paying rent to the State and in another case to collect Government assessment on land. The tenure though originally rent-free came in time in many cases to be qualified by the reservation of a portion of the assessable revenue, or by the exaction of all proceeds exceeding the intended value of the original assignment. Such charge was called ‘jody’ that is to say favour able rent or quit rent. Failure to pay any instalment of the ‘jody’ made the estate liable to attachment and sale by the Government under the sale law”.

11. In Sundararaja Iyengar's Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency, inam is explained as follows:—

“The existence of beneficial grants, known, originally by the Sanskrit name, manyams, and latterly by the Arabic term, inams, after the Mohamedan conquest, can be traced to a very remote antiquity in India. It was the custom of the Hindu Government to grant assignments of lands, revenue free or at low quit rents, for the payment of troops and Civil Officers, for the support, of temples and their servants, and charitable institutions, for the maintenance of holy and learned men or for rewards for public service”.

This practice was continued by the Mohommadan Rulers and was also adopted by the British Govt., for some time, but it was later discontinued. Subsequently, in 1859, rules were framed for enfranchising the inam grants by surrendering the reversionary in interests of the Government for an equivalent quit-rent, and placing enfranchised inams on the footing of private property and an Inam Commissioner was appointed who was authorised to sell the reversionay rights of the Government and to issue a title deed to the inamdar in proof of such enfranchisement. Thus, the inams may be classified as;

(1) Unenfranchised inams:

(2) Enfranchised inams but liable to jody or quit-rent, as the case may be.

(3) Enfranchised inams, the rent being commuted or redeemed.

12. Subsequently, under the Andhra Inam Assessment Act, 1955, the Government was empowered to levy in lieu of quit-rent, jody or other similar amount payable to the Government in respect of inams, an assessment at the settlement rate for similar ryotwari lands in the village where the village has been settled and in other cases at the rates of assessment to be fixed by the Collector with reference to settlement rates for similar lands in neighbouring ryotwari villages. Some of the service inams have been however, exempted from the levy of full assessment in order to secure the continuance of essential village services. Thus, the essence of an inam grant is that it is a grant of land, free of assessment or at low quit-rent or jodi or other like amount.

13. Ryotwari tenure is described in Maclean's Manual of Madras Administration as follows:

“A ryotwari settlement means the division of all arable land whether cultivated or waste into blocks or lots, the assessment of each block at a fixed rate for a term of years and the exaction of revenue from each occupant according to the area of land thus assessed which he occupies. That area may either remain constant, or may be varied from year to year, at the occupant's pleasure, by the relinquishment of old blocks or the occupation of new. Under this system each occupant deals directly with the Government and is responsible for his own revenue assessment only. A ryotwari settlement is thus peculiarly a settlement with the peasantry, as tenants of the State enjoying a tenant right which can be inherited sold or burdened for debt in precisely the same manner as a proprietary right, subject always to payment of the revenue, that is to say, the rent due to the State”.

14. In Sundararaja Iyengar's Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency, the nature of ryotwari tenure is explained as follows:—

“The distinguishing feature of the ryotwari system is that the State is brought into direct contact with the cultivators and collects the revenue through its own village officers without the intervention of intermediate agents such as farmers or zamindars, and its object is the creation of peasant proprietors. All the increased income derived from the extension of cultivation goes to the State. Under this system, the Government share of the produce is computed into a money payment and the principle on which such commutation is made is known as the half not principle”.

15. It will be seen that in the case of inam lands, they are held either free of assessment or are liable to pay quit rent jody or other amount of like nature, which is much less than the assessment payable in respect of similar ryotwari lands. Thus, the essential incident of an inam tenure is the grant of a land either-rent free or at low quit-rent or jody or other amount of like nature. It is this benefit of holding the lend either rent-free or at low quit rent or jody or other amount of like nature that is taken away by conversion of the inam tenure into ryotwari tenure and full assessment under the ryotwari system is levied.

16. To establish direct relationship between the Government and the cultivator, several legislations have been enacted for abolition of Zamindaries and other estates, and for conversion into ryotwari. The Inams Abolition Act is another piece of legislation enacted for the purpose of abolition and conversion of inam lands, known as minor inams, into ryotwari.

17. The question that arises for consideration's as to when exactly, i.e, from what date, the abolition of the inam lands and conversion of the same into ryotwari takes place under the Act. Is it on the date of coming into force of Actor is it on the date of the actual grant of a ryotwari patta for a particular land either in favour of the inamdar or the tenant?

18. Sri P. Kodandaramayya and Sri. M. Jagannadha Rao, who addressed arguments on behalf of the petitioners, invited us to the several provisions of the Act in support of their contention that the abolition and conversion of the inam land into ryotwari takes place on the date of the commencement of the Act. Firstly, it is contended that the person or the institution holding the inam land in ryotwari or zamindari village, is declared eligible to a ryotwari patta. In the case of the inam land in inam villages, held by an institution on the date of commencement of the Act, such institution shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta. In the case of inam land in an inam village held by an inamdar other than an institution on the date of commencement of the Act, the inamdar and the tenant in possession on 7.1.1948 or on the date of commencement of the Act shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta to the extent of one-third and two-thirds share therein respectively. The contention of the learned counsel is that Sec. 4 of the Act came into force on 14-12-1956, and from that date, the persons mentioned in Sec. 4 of the Act have acquired a right to the grant of a ryotwari patta as mentioned therein and therefore, from that date, the inam tenure stood abolished and got converted into ryotwari tenure. But we are unable to accept this contention. The expression “on the date of commencement of the Act” only determines the person or institution in possession of the inam land on that date who is entitled to get a ryotwari patta. The right to get a patta cannot be equated to the grant of a patta. The person or institution declared entitled to the ryotwari patta under section 4 of the Act has to work out his rights in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Act and obtain a ryotwari patta. Firstly, under section 3 of the Act, an enquiry has to be held to determine the three points viz., whether a particular land is an inam land; whether it is in ryotwari, zamindari or inam villager and whether is held by any institution, if it is held that it is not an inam land, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. It is only on determination that a land is an inam land under section 3 of the Act that the provisions of the Act will get attracted to the said inam land. Further, the inamdar's and the tenant's right to grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of the inam land will depend upon the further determination of the question whether the inam land is ryotwari, zamindari or inam village, and whether the inam land is held by an institution or a person. Further, under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, the tenant in occupation of the inam land on 7-1-1948 will be entitled to a patta in respect of a two thirds share, provided he is declared to be in occupation of the land by the Revenue Court under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act or by the Collector under sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Act. Under section (5)(2) of the Act, a tenant in possession of the inam land in an inam village on 7-1-1948 is entitled to be restored to occupation of the land by making an application in that behalf to the Revenue Court. Until he is so restored to possession, the question of any right to a ryotwari patta vesting in such a tenant on the date of commencement of the Act will not arise. Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act provides for grant of a ryotwari patta to the tenant in respect of his two-thirds share if to the tenant in occupation on 7-1-1948 does not apply for grant of a ryotwari patta. Therefore, the right to get a ryotwari patta under clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act depends upon several questions to be determined with regard to the tenant, who will be entitled to a ryotwari patta.

19. If it is to be held that a tenant in possession on 7-1-1948 acquired a vested right to a patta for two-thirds share on the date of commencement of the Act. The provision in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, enabling the tenant in occupation on the date of commencement of the Act to get a patta in default of the tenant in possession on 7-1-1948 applying for a grant of ryotwari patta, results in divesting the latter of the right which had vested in him. Under Sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act, the one-third share of the inam land in the occupation of a tenant in respect of which the inamdar is entitled to ryotwari patta under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 4, shall be deemed to be the compensation payable to the inamdar in lieu of the extinguishment of his rights in the two thirds share of such land. The apportionment of the one-third share to the inamdar and two-thirds to the tenant is to be made under section 6 of the Act, Under Section 6, where there is an agreement between the tenant and the inamdar as to the particular portion of the land to be given to the inamdar towards one-third share under clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act they shall file a joint statement before the Tahsildar. If there is no such agreement, the Tahsildar has to determine the portion of the inam land in the occupation of the tenant to be given to the inamdar towards his one-third share. Therefore, until this apportionment is done and one-third portion of the inam land in the occupation of the tenant is actually given to the inamdar, there is no extinguishment of the rights of the inamdar to the two-thirds share of such land. This also shows that the inam land will not stand abolished and get converted into ryotwari tenure on the date of the commencement of the Act.

20. Section 7 of the Act provides for an enquiry by the Tahsildar suo motu or on an application by the person or institution the determination of the person or institution entitled to a patta and for granting of a ryotwari patta in the prescribed form. It is only on the grant of a ryotwari patta that a direct relationship is established between the Government and the pattadar. The form prescribed under section 12 of the Act provides that every person or institution receiving ryotwari patta in respect of the inam land, shall with effect on and from the date of the grant of a ryotwari patta, be liable to pay the Government the ryotwari assessment as mentioned therein. This again shows that until a ryotwari patta is granted and the ryotwari assessment is imposed, as required by section 12 of the Act, the inamdar continues to hold the inam land subject to payment of the assessment under the Andhra Inam Assessment Act, which admittedly applies to inam land.

21. Two other important provisions in section 12 are, the proviso to clause (b) of that section and the explanation thereto which are as follows:—

22. PROVISO:

“Provided that if any jodi or kattubadi is payable in respect of an inam land to the landlord of an estate, the amount of such jodi or kattubadi shall be deducted from the assessment payable to the Government under this section”.

23. EXPLANATION:

“If no quit-rent, jodi or kattubadi or other amount of like nature was payable to the Government in respect of any inam land immediately before the granting of a ryotwari patta, the assessment leviable on such inam land in this section shall be in lieu of such quit-rent, jodi or kattubadi or other amount aforesaid”.

24. These provisions clearly indicate that the inam tenure continues till the grant of a ryotwari patta. Particularly the expression in the explanation “quit-rent, jodi or kattubadi or other amount of like nature payable to the Government in respect of any inam land immediately before the granting of a ryotwari patta” gives a clear indication that the inam tenure continues till the grant of a ryotwari patta, and that the Inamdar will be liable to pay quit-rent, jodi, etc., till the grant of ryotwari patta. This liability to pay quit-rent, jodi, or other amount of like nature stands modified or varied by the provisions of the Andhra Inams Assessment Act, 1955, which was enacted with a view to levy full assessment on several inam lands with effect from 1-7-1955. But that Act does not alter the character of the inam tenure of the inam lands, but only alters, the quantum of assessment.

25. Section 7 enjoins that the ryotwari pattas have to be granted in the prescribed form. Form No. VIII prescribed by the Rules provides that the inamdar, who was granted a ryotwari patta, “shall hold the lands specified therein under ryotwari tenure and shall be liable to pay the ryotwari assessment in respect of the said lands in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Act and such additional and other dues and amounts, if any, as may be leviable, in respect of the said land”. Thus, it is only from the date of the grant of a ryotwari patta that the grantee of the patta becomes liable to pay the ryotwari assessment. This also indicates that the inam tenure of inam land continues till the ryotwari patta is granted under section 7 of the Act, in the prescribed form.

26. Sri P. Kodandaramayya placed strong reliance on the marginal note to section 4 which reads; “Conversion of inam lands into ryotwari lands”, and contended that as section 4 had come into force on the date of commencement of the Act, the conversion of inam land into ryotwari tenure also took place on the same date. The learned Advocate-General contended that the marginal note is not part of the statute and cannot be used as an aid to construction of the section; and that even otherwise, the marginal note does not specify the point of time at which the inam land is abolished and converted into ryotwari tenure. The submission of the learned Advocate General has to be accepted. Both the parties have relied upon several rulings of the Supreme Court but it will be sufficient to refer to the latest ruling of the Supreme Court in Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (4) (1979) 2 SCC 468 : A.I.R 1979 S.C 289 where His Lordship Sen, J. speaking for the court observed at page 295/296 as follows:—

“The weight of authority is in favour of the view that the marginal note appended to a section cannot be used for construing the section, Lord Macnaghten in Balraj Kunwar v. Jagatpal Singh, (1904) ILR 26 All 393; (1 All LJ 384 (PC)) considered it well settled that marginal notes cannot be referred to for the purposes of construction. This court after referring to the above case with approval, said in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., 1950 SCR 335, (AIR 1950 SC 134):—

“Marginal notes in an Indian Statute as in an Act of Parliament, cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the statute.

As explained by Lord Macnaghten in the Privy Council, marginal notes are not part of an Act of Parliament”.

27. In view of the aforesaid latest ruling of the Supreme Court, we do not think that the marginal note can be relied upon for construing the statutory provision in section 4 of the Act. Even otherwise, the language of the marginal note to Section 4 does not give any indication as to the point of time at which conversion of the inam land into ryotwari tenure takes place. It is only by reference to the provisions of the Act that question has to be determined.

28. Sri M. Jagannadha Rao relied upon the provisions of section 8 of the Act which confer permanent occupancy rights on tenants in inam lands held by institutions in inam villages and contended that the right of permanent occupancy vested in such tenants on the date of commencement of the Act itself. But we do not find any force in this submission. As to who is the tenant, who will be entitled to right of permanent occupancy under Sec. 8 of the Act cannot be determined until it is first decided whether the tenant in possession on 7-1-1948 who is entitled to be restored to possession or, whether the tenant in possession an the date of commencement of the Act will be entitled to claim the right of permanent occupancy.

29. The next relevant provision to be noticed is section 11 of the Act. Under Sub-section (1), the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act are made applicable to tenancies in respect of inam lands governed by the Act. This provision applies to all tenants in respect of inam lands governed by the Act and not merely to tenancies of inam lands falling under sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. The intention of the Legislature is that until all the statutory steps are taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and ryotwari pattas are granted, the tenants in possession of such inam lands shall have the protection of the provision of the Andhra Tenancy Act.

30. Section 11(2) of the Act provides that where a person in occupation of the inam land or part thereof is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 4 of the Act, no order for his eviction shall be passed under the Andhra Tenancy Act, until it is decided that he is not entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 4. This conferment of the benefit of provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act would be wholly unnecessary if the inam lands stood converted into ryotwari tenure on the date of commencement of the Act and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the inamdar and his tenant ceased on that date. In our opinion, the provisions of Sec. 11 clearly indicate that inam land continues until it is finally decided as to who is entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act.

31. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the right to resume the inam lands stood abrogated on the commencement of the Act, the inam tenure stood abolished on that date. But the learned Advocate-General contended that the liability to resumption is not necessary incident of inam tenure and there are inams which are irresumable, and that service inams cannot be resumed so long as services are rendered, and, therefore, the fact that the right of resumption is put an end to in-respect of resumable inams, does not lead to the inference that the inam tenure stood abolished on the date of commencement of the Act. He has invited our attention to the Full Bench decision in Sundaram Ayyar v. Ramchandra Ayyar (5) ILR 40 Madras 389, where it was held that a grant to be an inam need not be resumable. In view of the aforesaid ruling, the right of resumption not being an essential incident of an inam the abrogation of the right of resumption would not by itself convert the inam land to a ryotwari tenure.

32. Sri. Kodandaramayya, the learned counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners contended that the decision of the Full Bench was based on the following four premises, which are wrong.

(1) that there was no provision in the Act fixing the date for conversion of the inam tenure into ryotwari tenure;

(2) that there is no provision for abolition and vesting of the inam land as in the case of estates under the Estates Abolition Act;

(3) That sections 11 and 12 indicate that the conversion of the inam land into ryotwari tenure takes piece on the date of grant of the ryotwari patta; and,

(4) that by reason of the provisions of section 6 the inamdar would not acquire a right to the grant of a ryotwari patta to his one-third share until the tenants in possession of the inam land puts him in possession of the one-third share.

33. But we do not think there is any force in this submission. There is no express provision in the Act fixing the date on which the abolition and conversion of inam lands into ryotwari tenures takes place. Therefore, all the provisions of the Act were referred to by the Full Bench in order to determine when exactly the abolition and conversion of inam land into ryotwari tenure would take place. The Full Bench no doubt referred to the provision in the Estates Abolition Act with regard to the vesting of the estate in the Government on the notified date and the absence of a similar provision in the instant Act. But that was not made the sole basis for coming to the conclusion that the inam land stood abolished on the date of the grant of the ryotwari patta. On the other hand, Vaidya, J. delivering the judgment of the Full Bench observed in paragraph 12 that there being no specific provision with regard to the date of abolition and conversion of inam land into ryotwari, that question had to be determined with reference to the intendment of the Act. The learned Judge thereafter considered the several provisions of the Act in detail and came to the conclusion that the abolition and conversion of inam tenure into ryotwari took place only on the date of grant of ryotwari patta. We have already referred to the provisions of Secs. 6, 11, and 12 of the Act and held that the aforesaid provisions indicate that the conversion of the inam tenure into ryotwari tenure took place only on the date of grant of the patta. We do not therefore, agree with the contention of Sri P. Kodandaramayya that the Full Bench decision was based on any wrong premise.

34. Sri P. Kodandaramayya, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the statute has to be construed or interpreted with reference to the statutory provisions of the Act and the intention of the legislature has to be gathered solely on the basis of such a construction or the interpretations of the language of the provisions of the statute and it cannot be based upon any omission or absence of a provision in the Act, and that the Full Bench committed an error that in the absence of any provision similar to the provisions occurring in the Estates Abolition Act or in Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, the abolition and conversion of the inam land under the Act would not take place on the date of the coming into force of the Act. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the rulings in Amalgamated Electricity Co. (Belgaum) Ltd. v. Municipal Committee, Ajmer (6) A.I.R 1969 S.C 227 and S.T Commr. UP v. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur (7) (1975) 4 SCC 22 : A.I.R 1975 SC, 1039. The learned Advocate General, while not controverting the aforesaid Principles of statutory construction, however contend that the Full Bench in Veeramma v. Surudamma (1) based its conclusion solely on the provisions of the Act, and, therefore, there was no contravention of the aforesaid principles of statutory construction: I think this submission of the Advocate-Genera I has to be accepted. It is observed by the Full Bench in paragraph 12 as follows.

“It has also to be seen that there is no provision in the Inams Abolition Act whereby it can be specifically stated that on the date of the commencement of that Act, the inam tenures to which the Act applies stood abolished and converted into ryotwari tenures. The learned counsel for the respondents is right when he states that there is no specific provision which says that the inams will stand abolished or converted into a ryotwari patta. This position being conceded, the question whether the inam tenure stood abolished and was converted into a ryotwari tenure on the date of the commencement of the Act will have to be determined from the intendment of the Act. It is an accepted principle of interpretation that such a conclusion can only be drawn if the provisions of the Act lead to the said result and no other result. If two conclusions can be reached from the provisions of the Act, it cannot be held that the inam tenure stood abolished or converted into a ryotwari tenure on the date of the commencement of the Act.”

35. Sri M. Jagannadha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon L.D Maheswari v. M.R Tribunal (8) (1975) 1 SCC 487 : A.I.R 1975 S.C 1036 in support of their contention that by virtue of the provisions of section 4 of the Act vesting of the ownership of the inam lands in the State and the transfer to the inamdar or the tenant as the case may be, took place simultaneously on the date of the coming into force of the Act. The learned Advocate General contended that case hes no bearing on the question that arises for consideration here. In that case, it was contended that section 46(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 was violative of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and that it was not saved by Article 31(A). Section 46(1) reads as reads as follows:—

“46(1). Notwithstanding anything in this chapter or any law for the time being in force or any custom usage, decree contract or grant to the contrary, with effect on and from the first day of April 1961, the ownership of all lands held by tenants which they are entitled to purchase from their landlords under any of the provisions of this chapter shall stand transferred to and vest in, such tenants and from such date such tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such lands”.

36. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant there was that under section 46(1), the ownership of the lands held by the tenants which they were entitled to purchase from their landlords stood transferred to and vested in the tenants and that there was no acquisition by the State of any estate or any rights therein, nor was there any extinguishment or modification of such rights in favour of the state. Hence section 46(1) was not saved by Article 31(A). Paragraph 9 sets out the contentions raised and the reasons given by the learned judge, Goswami, J., speaking for the court for repelling the said contention and it is necessary to extract the same in full.

“The learned counsel next contends that section 46 of the Act is violative of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and is not saved by Article 31-A which is not applicable. Counsel submits that under section 46 there is no acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights in order to come within the saving provision of Article 31-A(1)(a). According to counsel the land is transferred from the landlord and vests in the tenant by virtue of Section 46. There is, therefore no acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein nor is there any extinguishment or modification of such rights in favour of the State. Section 46 and such other provisions in the Act are in furtherance of agrarian reforms which are one of the principal objects of the Act. The fact that section 46 in terms transfers the land from landlord to tenant and vests the ownership in the latter does not mean that there is no extinguishment of the estate or its rights in favour of the State for the sole reason that there is no exptess mention of such acquisition by the State in terms. The scheme underlying the provisions may be briefly stated. The State being the paramount owner of the lands had earlier granted the land to the tenure holders who are the landlords under the Act. In order to transfer the land to tenants from the landlords the first step the State will have to take is to extinguish the rights of the tenure holders under the paramount owner. It is only then that transfer of the same land to the tenants under the land lords will be possible. Section 46, in our opinion, has achieved the twin purpose of extinguishment of the right of the landlord in the estate and conferment of the same right upon the tenant. Once that happens there is in one breath extinguishment of the right in favour of the State and the conferment of the said right in favour of the tenant. There is, therefore no substance in the contention that Article 31-A is not applicable in this case to enable the appellants to challenge the provision under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The objection of the learned counsel is, therefore without substance. Since Article 31-A is clearly applicable, we need not deal with the objection of counsel on the score of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution”.

37. It will be at once seen from the aforesaid paragraph that no question arose or was decided as to on which date the acquisition or extinguishment or modification of the rights in the lands covered by section 46(1) took place. In fact such question would not arise as section 46(1) itself specifies that the ownership shall stand transferred to the tenants with effect on and from the 1st April 1961.

38. The only question which fell for consideration there was, whether there was acquisition by the State of any estate or rights therein or whether there was any extinguishment or modification of such rights in favour of the State and whether the provisions of section 46(1) related to agrarian reform so as to attract the protection of Article 31(A). That decision, therefore, does not render any assistance in determining the question that arises for consideration here.

39. It is sought to be contended by the learned Advocate-General that the expression ‘Inam Land’ has been used in all the sections of the Act and this also indicates that the inam tenure continues till the grant of ryotwari patta. But we do not think this submission can be accepted. No doubt the expression ‘inam land’ is used in several sections but it is used with a view to describe or identify the land in respect of which the ryotwari patta is to be granted, but it does not lend any assistance in determining the date on which the inam tenure stands abolished and gets converted into ryotwari tenure.

40. One other contention raised by Sri Kodandaramayya, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if the date of the grant of the ryotwari patta is held to be the date on which the inam tenure stands abolished and gets converted into ryotwari tenure, there will be different dates, on which the inam land gets converted into ryotwari tenure. But there is nothing illogical or incongruous in providing for the conversion of the inam lands into ryotwari tenures on different dates. The provisions of the Act indicate that ryotwari patta can only be granted after all the steps have been taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and necessarily, the ryotwari pattas will be granted on different dates after determining the nature of the inam land, and the persons or institutions or the tenants entitled to the grant of pattas. There is no express provision in the Act that all the inam lands governed by the Act should stand abolished and get converted into ryotwari tenure on the same date. It has to be noted that the Act contemplates not mere abolition but also conversion of inam lands into ryotwari tenure. There cannot be any hiatus or interregnum between the abolition and conversion of the inam land into ryotwari tenure. The tenure cannot stand abolished and remain in a state of suspense till it is converted into ryotwari by grant of a ryotwari patta. If the inam land stood abolished on the date of commencement of the Act it cease to be inam land from that date. At the same time it cannot be treated as ryotwari land until a ryotwari patta is granted. If so, the inamdar or the tenant as the case may be will not be liable to pay the assessment under the Inams Assessment Act or ryotwari assessment during the intervening period. If the contention of the petitioners is to be accepted, there will be a hiatus between the abolition and the conversion of inam land into ryotwari tenure, and it will lead to anomolies and difficulties in determining the rights and fixing the liabilities of the inamdars and the tenants. The provisions of the Act should, therefore, be construed in such a manner as not to lead to any such results. The legislative intention appears to be clear that should be no time lag between the abolition and conversion of the inam land into ryotwari and that they should take place simultaneously. In other words, the intention is to abolish inam tenure by conversion into ryotwari tenure, and until conversion into ryotwari tenure takes place the inam tenure continues. The scheme and object of the Act, coupled with the various provisions of the Act, indicate that the abolition of the inam tenure of the inam land would take place simultaneously or contemporaneously with the conversion of the inam lands into ryotwari tenure.

41. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the decision of the Full Bench in Veeramma v. Surudamma (1) Supra, is correct and does not require any reconsideration. The question referred is answered accordingly.