JUDGMENT
The question in this case is whether the Government is entitled to enfranchise certain lands in a Zamindari. These lands were at the inception kurnam service inam lands. In 1854 when an account was taken of the properties in the Zamindari it was not denied by the persons in possession that they appertained to the kurnam service. The Lower Courts have on these and other facts come to the conclusion that the inam was continued by the Government within the meaning of Sect. 17 of Act II of 1894, in lieu of services to be rendered as kurnam. This conclusion is attacked by Mr. Ramadoss with reference to certain observations of Sundara Aiyar, J., in Secretary of State for India v. Bhanamurthy. We shall consider how far that dictum affects the present case. As was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, if before a sannad is granted under Regulation 25 of 1802 certain lands were found to appertain to village services, the Government by virtue of the prerogative reserved to them by Sect. 4 of that Regulation assumed control over such properties and excluded them from the assets of the Zamindari. Regulation 29 of 1802 enabled the Government to obtain directly the services from the Karnams who were previously under the control of the Zamindars. Having regard to the fact that the lands granted in lieu of remuneration often changed hands and that the Office-holders often found themselves in an impecunious position owing to the conduct of their predecessors, Act II of 1894, was passed fixing wages for the office; as a natural corollary from this, Government directed the enfranchisement of the lands previously held as service Inam. In these circumstances, it is difficult to see what right was left in the proprietor in respect of these lands. From the two Regulations we have referred to it is clear that lands granted to village officers like karnams etc., ceased to appertain to the Zamindari. The right of resumption, and re-grant, therefore, inhered in the Government. The Government were therefore entitled to enfranchise the land. As regards Secretary of State for India v. Bhanamurthy, the facts are not quite clear. Apparently, the whole of the village in which the land in question was situated was granted to an agraharamdar. Whether before the granting of the sannad the lands in dispute had been granted for karnam services or whether it was the agraharamdars that made the grant to the karnam is not clear. On these facts the Lower Appellate Court in that case came to the conclusion that the lands were not service Inam lands; and one of the learned judges who heard the Second Appeal Sadasiva Aiyar, J, accepted that finding. Sundara Aiyar, J., apparently did not disagree with the finding in the case. He seems to have been inclined to the view that some overt act must be shown to have been done by the Government continuing the land in the enjoyment of the Office-holder as remuneration for doing the services. If the learned Judge intended to lay down that the facts that the land was originally service inam, that it was excluded from the assets of the zamindar in 1802, and that subsequently the Government took service from the karnam and allowed him to enjoy the property would not enable a Court of Law to draw the inference that there has been a continuance of the grant within Sect. 17 of Act II of 1894 we are unable to agree with him. In this case on the facts found there can be no doubt that the lands having originally been service Inam and having been excluded from the zamindari, the Government is entitled to enfranchise them.
The Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.