1. Assuming without deciding that the effect of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the Government was that the suit lands were substituted as a part of his zamindari for the zamin lands which are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it must be borne in mind that prior to the exchange the zamindar as regards the suit lands was in the position of a Government raiyat and owner of the kudivaram right. He had, therefore, in our opinion, a right of occupancy in the lands within the meaning of the explanation of sub-Section 6 of Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act and, therefore, he did not by the terms of the explanation lose such occupancy right by becoming interested in the land as landholder, that is, by the lands becoming part of his estate. It is then said that this is opposed to the plain provisions of S. 8(1), which provides that in such a case the owner shall hold the lands as a landowner and not as a raiyat.
2. The language of S. 8(1) is no doubt wide enough to cover such a case, but the rest of the section rather indicates that in framing it the legislature was thinking of the acquisition of occupancy rights by landholders and not of the acquisition of landholder's rights by raiyats.
3. But, however this may be, the general provisions of S. 8(1) must, we think, yield to the special provisions of the explanation as to this particular, on the principle generalia specialibus non derogant. For this reason, we think that the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.
S.N/R.K
4. Appeal dismissed.
Comments