S. THENAPPA CHETTIAR ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

                                                           421


                   S. 'lllEN.\PPA CHE'ITIAR ETC.                   A
                               v.
                      STATE OF TAMIL NADU

                         MARCH 4, 1986

          [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.]               B

      Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1969 (Act 23 of 1969), constitutional
validity of - Whether the legislation is covered and protected ·
by Article 31A of the Constitution - Constitution of India,
1950, Articles 14, 19,31 and 31A.
                                                                   c
      The princely State of Pudukottai got merged with the
Indian Union with effect from March 3, 1948 as a result of
which it becaioo part of the Madras Province.· Pursuant to the
report of the Prakasam Conmittee constituted in 1937 to look
into the question of agrarian reform in Madras Province, the
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,       D
1948 (Madras Act 26 of 1948) was passed by the Madras
Legislature. The said Act applied to all estates, namely,
zamindaries, under tenures and inam estates as defined in
section 3, clause (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908;
except inam villages which became "estate" by virtue of the
Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act 1936. The said Act       E
was intended to provide for the repeal of the permanent
settlement, the acquisition of the rights of the land holders
in permanently settled and certain other estates in the
Province of Madras and the introduction of the ryotwari
settlements in such estates. Thereafter for the purpose of
completing the process of agrarian reform, the Tamil Nadu Inam     F
Estates (Abolition and· Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
(Act 26 of 1963)·was passed. Act 26 of 1963 provided for the
acquisition of all rights of the land holders in inam estates
in the State of Tamil Nadu and the int£oduction of the
ryotwari settlements in such estates. The estates to which
this Act was applicable were of two kinds; (i) existing inam       G
estates; and (ii) new inam estates. The existing inam estates
were inam villages which became estates by virtue of the
Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936. They were
whole villages. The new inam estate which was a new
                                                                   H
         422                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1986] 1 s.c.R.

A
          nomenclature evolved for the purpose of Act 26 of 1963, meant
          a part village inam estate or a Pudukottai inam Estate as
          defined in section 2(14) of that Act. Then came the Tamil Nadu ·
          Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963;
          (Act 30 of 1963) which provided for the acquisition of minor
          inams in the State and introduction of the Ryotwari
B         settlements in such inams. This was followed by the Tamil Nadu
          Inams (Supplementary) Act, 1963 (Act 31 of 1963) providing the
          machinery for the determination of the questions whether ai        )
          non-ryotwari area in the State of Tamil Nadu was or was not an!
        · existing inam estate, apart village in an estate, a minor
          inam, or whole inam village in Pudukottai. '
c
               The appellants and other persons who were similarly,
         situated made applications for the grant or ryotwari pattas in
         respect of such lands which they claimed to be in their
         possession on the· basis that their lands were covered by Act
         30 of 1963, In some cases ryotwari pattaa were issued and in
D        some cases the proceedings were still pending. At that time,
         the Government of Tamil Nadu on the representation made by the
         ryots of Pudukottai area appointed a special officer for the
         purpose of investigating into the character of the lands held
         as inams in Pudukottai area, who on an examination recoanended
         that 116 part iiiam villages should be brought within the
E        purview of Act 26 of 1963. Accepting the said recomnendations ~
         the Tamil Nadu Government passed the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates
         (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1969
         (Act 23 of 1969), In the added Schedule lA to Act 26 of 1963,
         by the 1969 Act, the two appellants' lands were shown .e'
         serial Nos. 2 and 110, The effect of the Act on the rights of
F        the appellants was (i) that their lands came within the scope
         of Act 26 of 1963 with retrospective effect i.e. 15.2,65; and
         \ii) that their lands were not covered by Acts 30 and 31 of
         1963 and as such any amount paid under Act 30 of 1963 wi!ii
         recoverable with interest thereon at the rate of 3 per cent
         per annum as if it were an arrear of land revenue and all
    G    pending proceedings under the said two Acts abated. The
         appellants therefore filed writ petitions before the Madras
         High Court challenging the said Act of 1969, The High Court,
         came to the conclusion that Act 26 of 1969 was an integrlu
         part of the legislation made in the State of Tamil Nadu ,in
         order to bring about agrarian reform and therefore all the
         contentions based on Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constith-
         tion were untenable and diBmissed the writ petitions.       i
                            S.T. CHETTIAR v. STATE                     423

                                                                              A
--.. i         Dismissing the appeals by certificates under Article
         133(1) (c) of the Constitution, the Court,

             HEID : l. A reading of the provisions of the Madras Act·
       26 of 1963 clearly establishes tl\at it was intended to bring
       about agrarian reform in the State of Tamil Nadu in respect of         B
       the estates which were included in Schedule lA which included
       the lands of the appellants also. Therefore the lands of the
    '\ appellants which have been included in Schedule IA to Madras
       Act 26 of 1963 by the Madras Act 23 of 1969 are liable to be
       dealt with under Act 2.6 of 1963, [436 D-E; 439 B-C)

                 .2.1 After the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution     c
           the expression "estate" for purposes of Article 31A included
           within its scope (i) any Jagir, inam or muafi or other similar
           grant and in the State of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, any janam
           right; (ii) any land held under ryotwari settlement; and (iii)
           any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for pur-
   -.... poses ancillary thereto, including waste land forest land,           D
           land for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures
           occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and
           village artisans and the expression rights in relation to an
           estate, included any rights vesting in a proprietor, sub-pro-
           prietor, under-proprietor, tenure-holder, raiyat, under raiyat
           or other intermediary and any rights or privileg~. ta respect      E
           of land revenue. Therefore, even granting that the lands in
           question were ryotwari lands they would still come within the
           definition of the expression "estate" given in clause (2) of
           Article 31A of the Constitution. Further their lands could be
   ~       brought within Act 26 of 1963 for purposes of Act 26 of 1963
           with retrospective effect from a date prior to the c01liiig into   F
           force of Act 26 of 1963, Any declaration that the lands were
           not inam estates would have been of no use. It may be that the
           inclusion of the lands of the appellants was violative of
           Article .14 but still the law is protected by Article 31A of

                        '                  .
           the Constitution. It is no longer open to the appellants to
           question about the applicability of Article -31A of the
   'I--... Constitution to Act 26 of 1963. · [436 E-11; 438 B-C; IHI;
                                                                              G
    · ' 439 A-B)

               Khajmlian Wakf l!etatee etc. v. State of Madras & .Anr.,
         [1971) 2 S.C.R. 790 followed,
                                                                              H
               2. 2 The content ion that a ince appellants had only a
         right to get the patta in respect of the lands on the date on
    424                  SUPREME COURT ll.EPORTS           [1986] 1 s.c,R.

A
    which the impugned Act was passed in the year 1969 the subject
    matter of the legislation was not agricultural lands and
    therefore Article 31A of the Constitution was not applicable
    is untenable. Clause (a) of Article 31AC1) which refers to !the
    acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights or
    extinguishment or modification of any such rights would be
B   applicable even to a right to get a patta in respect of an
    agricultural land and any law which affects such right &lso
    would be protected by Article 31A. No such law can be ~
    questioned on the ground thst it violates Article 14, Article
    19 and Article 31, [438 B-F.]

c         2.3 The. plea thst the Madras Act 23 of 1969 encroached
    upon the judicial power of courts when it declared thst the
    lands mentioned in Srhedule lA which was added by the said Act
    were also inam estates is equally untenable. It is true i thst
    under Act 31 of 1963 it was open to the parties to seek a
    declaration before the Settlement Officer, the Tribunalj and
D   the High. Court regarding the nature of the tenure of the lands          ~
    in question but by the impugned Act the State LegiBlature
    declared thst Act 26 of 1963 was a1>plicable to the lands
    included in Schedule lA, That became possible in the case of
    ryotwari lands after the Seventeenth Amendment of the
    Constitution on June 20, 1964 with retrospective effect.
E   [438 E-G]

          CIVIL APPELLATE    JURISDICTION          Civil     Appeals· Nos.
    1055-1056 of 1972,

          From the Judgment and Order dated 6th August, 1971 of              i
?   the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 180 and 214 of
    1970,

          S. Balakrishnan for the Appellants.

          A, V. Rangam for the Respondent.
G
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          VENKATARAMIAH, J, These two appeals filed under Article
    133(l)(c) of the Constitution of India, as it stood wh~n they
    were instituted, are filed against the common judgment' dated
H   August 6, 1971 of the High Court of Madras in Writ P~tition
    No. 180 of 1970 and Writ Petition No. 214 of 1970 dismissing
                                                                   '
             S.T. CHETTIAR v. STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]          425


    the writ petitions. In the said writ petitions along with some      A
    others the appellants questioned the constitutional validity
    of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
    Ryotwari Amendment Act, 1969 (Act No. 23 of 1969) (hereinafter
    referred to as 'the impugned Act ' ) by which certatn lands held
    by each of them had been treated as falling within the scope
    of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into       B
    Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to
·\ as 'Act 26 of 1963' ). The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1055
    of 1972 S. Thenappa Chettiar and others were interested in the
    lands (both wet and dry) measuring altogether 77. 23 acres
    situated at Varpet Village, Tirumayam Talttk, Tiruchirapalli
    District covered by Title Deeds Nos. 7909 to 7979, 8310 to
    8312, 8315, 8316, 9209, 9618 to 9623, 9519, 9795 and 9796 and       c
    the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1056 of 1972 were interest-
    ed in the lands (both wet and dry) measuring altogether about
    300 acres· situated at Gudalur Village, Kolathur Taluk,
    Tiruchirapalli District covered by Title Deeds Nos. 8005 to
~· 8023 and 9447. These lands were situated in the area which
    formerly formed part of the Pudukottai State which later on         D
    was merged in the Indian Union with effect from March 3, 1948
    as a result of which it became part of Madras Province. In the
     Province of Madras the question of ~grarian reform was taken
    up for consideration seriously first in the year 193 7. The
    Madras Government appointed a committee headed by Shri T.
     Prakasam to enquire into and to report on the conditions \oihich   E
     prevailed in the zamindari and other proprietory areas in the
     Province. That conmittee submitted its report along with a
     draft bill on the lines of its recommendations. No action
 ~ could be taken on that report as the Congress Ministry which
     had appointed the co111111ittee res igned. Then in the year 1948
     the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)        F
     Act, 1948 (Madras Act 26 of 1948) was passed by the Madras
     Legislature. The said Act applied to all estates namely,
     zamindaris under · tenures and inam estates as defined in
     section 3, clause (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908,
     except inam villages \oihich became estates by virtue of the
 ·h Madras Estates Land (Th.ird Amendment) Act, 1936. The said Aet      G
  ' 'was intended to provide for the repeal of the permanent
     settlement, the acquisition of the rights of the land-holders
     in permanently settled and certain other estates in the
     Province of Madras and the ,introduction of the ryotwari
     settlements in such estates. Thereafter for the purpose of
                                                                        H
    426                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1986] 1 s.c.R.

A
    completing the process of the agrarian reform initiated by the
    said Act of 1948, Act 26 of 1963 referred to above was passed.
    Act 26 of 1963 provided for the acquisition of all rights of
    the land-holders in inam estates in the Sta!ie of Tamil Nadu
    and the introduction of the ryotwari settlements in such
    estates. The estates to which this Act was applicable were of
B   two kinds; (i) existing inam estates; and (ii) new inam
    estates. The existing inam estates were inam villages which
    bec.ame estates- by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third I*
    Amendment) Act, 1936. They were whol~ villages. The new inam
    estate which was a new nomenclature evolved for the purpose of
    this Act, meant a part village inam estate or a Pudukkottai
c   Inam Estate as defined in ~ection 2(14) of that Act. Then came
    the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into
    Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to
    as 'Act 30 of 1963'). Act 30 of 1963 provided for the acquisi-
    tion of rights of inamdars of minor inams in the State of
    Madras and the introdud:1on of ryotwari settlements in such
D   inams. This was followed by the Tamil Nadu InatD.9 (Supple- 'r
    mentary) Act (Act 31 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act
    31 of 1963') providing the machinery for che determination of
    the questions. whether any non-ryotwari area in the State of
    Tamil Nadu was or was not an existing inam estate, a part
    village inam estate, a minor inam or whole inam village in
E   Pudukottai. The appellants and other persons who were similar-
    ly situated made applications for the grant of ryotwari pattas
    in respect of such lands which they claimed to be in their
    possession on the basis that their land were covered by Act ,
    30 of 1963. In some cases it appears ryotwari pattas were
    issued and in some other cases the proceedings were still ->-
F
    pending. At that time the Government of Tamil Nadu on the
    representation made by the. ryots of Pudukottai area appointed
    a Special Officer for the purpose of investigating into the
    character of the lands held as lnams in the Pudukottai area.
    The Special Officer on examination recommended that 116 part
    inam villages should be brought within the purview of Act 26
G   of 1963. It may be mentioned here that the lands of the appel-
    lants had not been brought within the scope of Act 26 of 1963 __.r-{
    when it was enacted. Accepting the recommendation, the Act
     (which is an amending Act) which is impugned in these proceed-
     ings, was passed in the year 1969. The Statement of Objects
    and Reasons accompanying the Bill which ultimately became the
H    impugned Act read as follows :-
    S.T. CllETTIAR v. STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J,]     427


     "The Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and           A
     Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act
     26 of 1963) applies to all Iruwaram inam estates,
     part-village inam estates and certain whole inam
     villages in the merged territory of Pudukottai
     specified in Schedule I of the Act. There have been
     repeated representations to the Govt. by the ryots    B
     of Pudukottai area that most of the inams which
\    have been d~alt with under the Madras Minor lnams
     (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
     (Madras Act 30 of 1963) are part-inam villages and
     that they should also be brought within the scope
     of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. The lnamdars also
     preferred counter representations contending that     C
     even the villages already brought within the scope
     of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 should be taken away
     from its purview. The Govt. considered both the
     representations and appointed a Special Officer to
     investigate into the tenure of these inams in
     Pudukottai    area. The Special Officer, after a      D
     thorough examination of the whole matter recommend-
     ed that 116 part-inam villages will have to be
     brought within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Inam
     Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
     Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963). The Govern-
     ment have decided to accept the recommendation of     E
     the Special Officer and to bring these 116 part-
      inam villages within the purview of Tamil Nadu Act
     26 of 1963 and to amend the Act suitably.

     2. All these 116 part-inams which are proposed to
     be brought within the purview of Tamil Nadu Act 26    F
     of 1963 are now treated as minor inams. They have
     vested in the Government under the provisions of
     the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion
     into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act 30 of 1963),
     on the appointed day under that Act. The question
     as to how the proceedings already taken or pending    G
     under Madras Act 30 of 1963 should be treated. The
     Government   have   decided   that   the   amending
     legislation should be deemed to have come into
     force in respect of these part-inams on the
     appointed day under Madras Act 30 of 1963 subject
                                                           H
428                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS     (1986] 1 s.c.R.

                                       .
          to a proviso that, where in respect of any such        >-
          Inam estate the operation . of the Act has been
          stayed or interrupted, then the date from which the
          Government are in uninterrupted possession should
          be deemed to have come into 'force i.n respect of
          such inam estate. It is also proposed that every
          order passed in any proceeding taken under Madras
          Acts 30 and 31 of 1963 in respect of any such
          estate shall be deemed to be of no effect and any      /
          such proceeding pending on the date of the publi-
          cation of · the proposed Act should abate and the
          amount paid, if any under Madras Act 30 of 1963 to
          any pt!rson should be recovered with interest as if
          it were an arrear of land revenue."

     By section 2 of the impugned Act, section 1 of Act 26 of
1963 was amended by adding sub-section (7) thereto which read
as follows ·-
                                                                 r
           (7). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
          11

          contained in sub-sections (4) to (6), in regard to
          Pudukkottai inam estates specified in Schedule IA,
          this section and sections 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 56(3), 59,
          64, 73 and 75 shall be deemed to have c'Oioo into
          force on the 1st January, 1964; and the rest of
          this Act shall be deemed to have come into force in
          regard to such Pudukkottai inam estates on the 15th
          February, 1965:

          Provided that in the case of any such Pudukkottai
          inam estate, the settleioont of which. is published
          under · sub-section (2) of section 3 of the
          Pudukkottai (Settlement of Inams) Act, 1955 (Madras
          Act XXIII of 1955), on a date subsequent to the
          15th February, ·1965, the rest of this Act as
          aforesaid shall be deemed to have coioo into force
          in regard to such Pudukkottai inam estate on such
          subsequent date:                                      .~·

          Provided further that where, in regard to any such
          Pudukkottai inam estate, the operation of the rest
          of this 'Act as aforesaid has been stayed or
          interrupted by order of Court of Tribunal or other
              S,T, CHETTIAR v. STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J,]       429

                                                                     A
               authority constituted under any law for the time
               being in force, the date from which the Government
               have been in uninterrupted possession of such
               estate shall be deemed to be the date on which the
               rest of this Act as aforesaid shall be deemed to
               have come into force."                                B

          The impugned Act also introduced a new section - section
    '73-B in Act 26 of 1963 which read as follows :-

               "73-B. Madras Acts XXX and XXXI of 1963 not to
               apply to Pudukkottai inam estates specified in
               Schedule IA.        ( 1) Notwithstanding anything     C
l              contained in the Madras Minor lnams (Abolition and
1
          •    Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act Ill
               of 1963) and in the Madras lnams (Supplementary)
               Act, 1963 (Madras Act XXXI of 1963)-

               (i) the provisions of the said Acts shall be deemed   D
               never to have applied to a Pudukkottai inam estate
               specified in Schedule 1-A, and every order passed
               in any proceeding taken under the said Acts in
               respect of that inam estate shall be deemed to be
               of no effect and if any proceeding under the said
               Acts is pending on the date of the publication of     E
               the ·Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and
               Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1969 in
               the Fort St. George Gazette, such proceeding shall
               abate; and

               (ii) any amount paid under the Madras Minor Inams     F
               (Abolitl.on and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
               (Madras Act XXX of 1963) to any person, in respect
               of that inam estate shall, with interest thereon at
               three per cent per annum, be recoverable as if it
               were an arrear of land reve.nue.
                                                                     G
               (2) Where the entries relating to the inam area and
               the revenue nul£lber and name of revenue village as
               specified in columns (3) and (4) respectively of
               Schedule I-A are found to be either incomplete or
               incorrect with reference to the corresponding
               entries in the revenue registers, the Government      H
    430                  SQPREME COURT REPORTS      [19861 l s.c.R.

A
               may, by notification, from time to time, amend,. ~
               suitably the entries of columns (3) and (4) afore-
               said.                       •
               (3) All references made in this Act to Schedule I-A
               shall be considered as relating to the said
B              Schedule as for the time being amended in exercise
               of the powers conferred by this section."

         In Schedule IA which was added to Act 26 of 1963 by the
    impugned Act, the lands of the appellants in Civil Appeal No.      L
    1055 of 1972 were shown at serial nwnber 2 thereof and the         !!
c   lands of the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1056 of 1972 at
    serial No. llO. The effect of the Act on the rights of the
    appellants was that their lands referred to above came•within
    the scope of Act 26 of 1963 with retrospective effect
    notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained ·in
    sub-sections (4) to (6) in regard to Pudukottai Inam Estates
D   as they had been specified in Schedule I-A which was added bY,-
    the impugned Act to the Act 26 of 1963. Sections 1, 2, 4, 5,
    7, 8, 56(3), 59, 64, 73 and 75 of the Act 26 of 1963 were
    deemed to have come into force in regard to such Pudukottai
    estates on the 1st January 1964 and the rest of the Act 26 of
    1963 became applicable to them with effect from 15th February,
E   1965. The two provisos which are in sub-section (7) of
    section 1 of tl1e 1963 Act made certain ancillary provisions
    with regard to the date from which ·the Pudukottai Inam estates
    specified in Schedule I-A came within the ambit of Act 26 of
    1963. It is further seen that by virtue of section 73-B whicn
    was introd11ced by the impugned Act in Act 26 of 1963, Act 30.>-
F   of 1963 and Act 31 of 1963 became inapplicable to the estates
    specified in Schedule I-A to Act 26 of 1963 including the
    estates of the appellants. Section 73-B provided that the
    provisions of Act 30 of 1963 and Act 31 of 1963 should be
    deemed never to have applied to Pudukottai Inam estates
    specified in Schedule I-A and every order passed in any
G   proceeding taken under the said Acts in respect of these inam
    estates should be deemed to be of no effect and if anyi
    proceeding under the said Acts was pending in respect of any
    such estates on the date of the publication of the impugned
    Act such proceedings would abate. It further provided that any
    amount paid under Act 30 of 1963 to ,.ny person in respect of
H   those inam estates was recoverable with interest thereon at
            S.T. CHETTIAR v. STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.)        431


~ 1che rate of 3 per cent per annum as if it were an arrear of      A
  land revenue. Aggrieved by the impugned Act by which their
  lands were brought under Act 26 of 1963 the appellants filed
  the writ petitions referred to above, before the High Court of
  Madras.

        The principal grounds which were urged before the High      B
  ,Court by the appellants in their writ petitions were :-

             (a) A Pudukk.ottai estate which had vested in the
             Government on its enfranchisement was no longer a
             Pudukk.ottai estate on 15.2.1965 when Act 26 of 1963
             came into force and therefore Act 26 of 1963 as
             amended by the imp,ugned Act which came into force     C
             in 1969 was inapplicable to such· an estate.

             (b) The prolllllgation of the Pudukkottai Inam
             Settlement Rules, 1888 and their application to the
             lands of the appellants had the effect of
             converting the inam lands of the appellants into       D
             the freehold assessed lands and even otherwise on
             the merger of the Pudukk.ottai State with the Indian
             Union on March 3, 1948 and on the coming into force
             of the Pudukk.ottai (Settlement of Inams) Act, 1955
             the lands of the appellant became enfranchised.
                                                                    E
             (c) The levy of full assessment by the State of
             Madras on the lands in the merged territory made
             the lands of the appellants lose the inam
             character.

             (d) In the guise of an amendment the impugned Act      F
             of 1969 really attempted to take away the benefit
             which had already been given to the appellants
             under Act 30 of 1963 and thus the impugned Act was
             ot1lY a legislative devise to deprive the inamdars
             of their right to get the patta under Act 30 of
             1963. It was, therefore, urged that the impugned       G
             law was a piece of colourable legislation offending
             the appellants' fundamental rights guaranteed under
             Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of
             India.

                                                                    H
    432                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS     (1986] 1 S.C.R.


A              (e) That the impugned law was unconstitutional asi- •
               there was no public purpose to warrant its
               enactment nor did it satisfy the requirements of
               Article 31 (2) of the Constitution.

               (f) That the impugned law not being a law for the
               acquisition of land by the State or acquisition by
B              the State of any estate or any right therein on the
               extinguishment or modification of any s•ich rights;
               Article 31-A of the Constitution of India had no
               application.

         In reply it was contended on behalf of the Government of
c   Tamil Nadu that the enfranchisement under the Pudukkottai lnam
    Rules of 1888 could not take away the inam character of t;._
    lands of the appellants. It was further contended by the
    Government that the impugned enactment of 1969 was only an
    ancillary amendment to the Parent Act, Act 26 of 1963 so as to
    bring 116 inam estates treated wrongly as minor inams withou~
D   proper basis and quite contrary to the tenure of the inams. It
    was submitted that the impugned Act was in the nature of a
    legislative declaration on the debatable point as to whether
    the appellants' lands were or were not inam estates. The State
    Government lastly depended upon the provisions of Article 31-A
    of the Constitution and contended that even if the impugned
E   Act was violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the
    Constitution it was protected by Article 31-A. The High Court
    on a consideration of the submissions made before it by an
    the parties came to the conclusion that the impugned Act was
    an integral part of the legislation made in the State of Tamit
    Nadu in order to bring about agrarian reform and therefore all
F   the contentions based on Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the
    Constitution were untenable. The Writ Petitions were
    accordingly dismissed. The appellants have filed these appeals
    after obtaining a certificate of the High Court under Article
    133(l)(c) of the Constitution.
G         As mentioned earlier the process of agrarian reform wais
    commenced in the Province of Madras with the passing of the
    Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
    1948. Then came Act 26 of 1963. It applied to all inam
    estates. An inam estate was defined under section 2(7) of that
    Act and it meant an existing inam estate or a new inam estate.
H
              S.T. CHETTIAR v. STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]        433

                                                                       A
    .An existing inam estate was defined as an inam village which
> 1became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third
     Amendment) Act, 1936 (Madras Act XVIII of 1936 and a new inam
     estate meant a part village inain estate or ii Podukottai inam
     estate. A Pudukottai inam estate was defined in sub-section
     (14) of section 2 of Act 26 of 1963 as an inam village in the     B
     merged territory of Pudukkottai and specified in Schedule I
     and included such other whole inam village in the said terri-
   , tory as the Government might by notification from time to time
     specify. The lands of the appellants were not included in the
     Schedule I of Act 26 of 1963 when it was originally enacted.
     They fell however within the scope of Act 30 of 1963 which was
     passed in order to provide for the acquisition of the rights      C
     of inamdars in minor inams in the State of Tamil Nadu and the
     introduction of ryotwari settlement in such inams. The
     expression 'minor inam' was defined in sub-section (9) of
     section 2 of Act 30 of 1963. Clause (iii) of sub-section (9)
     of section 2 of that Act declared any inam recognised and
     confirmed under section 2 of the Pudukkottai (Settlement of       D
 '"'(Inams) Act, 1955 (Madras Act XXIII of 1955) but not including
     a new inam estate as defined in clause (9) of sect.ion 2 of Act
     26 of 1963 and situated in the merged territory of Pudukkottai
     also as a minor inam. With effect on or from the appointed day
     as otherwise expressly provided in Act 30 of 1963 every minor
     inam including all communal lands etc. stood transferred to       E
     the Government and vested -in it free of all incumbrances. It
     further provided that all rights and interests created by the
     inamdar in or over his inam before the appointed day would as
     against the Government cease and determine and that the inam-
  _. dar and any other person whose rights stood transferred under
     clause (b) or cease and determine under clause (c) of section     F
     3 of that Act would be entitled only to such rights and
     privileges as were recognised or conferred on him by or under
     the Act. Section 8 of Act 30 of 1963 provided that subject to
     the provisions of sub-section (2) thereof every person who was
     lawfully entitled to the Kudivaram in an inam land immediately
     before the appointed day whether such person was an inamdar or    G
     not would with effect on and from the appointed day entitled
   ·rw ryotwari patta in respect of that land. Sub-section (1) of
     sect ion 9 inter alia provided that subject to the provisions
     of section --ro;-where in respect of an lnam land no person was
     entitled to a ryotwari patta under section 8 and the lands
                                                                       H
    434                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1986 J l s.c.R.


A   vested in the Government, the persons specified in that sec-~
    tion was entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land· <
    in the following order of preference: (i) firstly, a person
    who had been personally cultivating such land for a continuous
    period of twelve years immediately before the Ist day of
    April, 1960; (ii) secondly, if there was no such person as was
    referred to in clause (i) then a person who had been lawfully
B   admitted into possession of such land on or after the 27th day
    of September, 1955 and who had been personally cultivating;
    such land ever since; and (iii) thirdly, if there was no such·     -,
    person as was referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) then a
    person who had been personally cultivating that land on the
    26th day of September, 1955 and for a period of twelve years
c   immediately before that date. Explanation I to section 9
    declared that in that section a person included an inamdar
    also. Act 30 of 1963 thus conferred the right on the inamdar
    to secure ryotwari patta in respect of his lands in a minor
    inam in certain circumstances specified above. Act 31 of 1963      ~
    was enacted to provide for the determination of questions
D   whether any non-ryotwari area in' the State of Tamil Nadu was..,..
    or was not an existing inam estate, a part village inam
    estate, a minor inam or a whole inam village in Pudukkottai.
    Section 5 of Act 31 of 1963 provided that notwithstanding
    anything contained in the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
    (Madras. Act l of 1908) or in any other law for the time being
E   in force, any person interested might within three months from
    the notified date as defined in clause (10) of section 2 of
    Act 26 of 1963 or from the date of publication in the District
    Gazette under sub-section (5) of section l of Act 30 of 19.63·
    of a copy of the notification under sub-section ( 4) of the /.-
    said section l make an application to the Settlement Officer
F   for a declaration that the non-ryotwari area specified in the
    application was or was not (i) an exl.sting inam estate; or
    (ii) a part village inam estate; or (iii) a minor inam; or
    (iv) a whole inam village in Pudukkottai. The Settlement
    Officer before whom the application was made was required to
    decide the question involved in the application after giving a
G   reasonable opportunity to the applicant to be heard in support_[
    of his application. The Settlement Officer was empowered t6 ~.
    give a decision whether the non-ryotwari area concerned was an
    existing inam estate, or a part village estate or a minor inam
    or a whole inam village in Pudukottai. Against the decision of
    the Settlement Officer under sub-section (2) of section 5 the
H
             S.T. CHETTIAR v. STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J,]        435

                                                                      A
, -{3tate Government or any person aggrieved by such decision
   might within three ll>)nths from the date of the decision appeal
    to the Tribunal. From the decision of the Tribunal a Revision
    Petition lay to the High Court under section 115 of the Code
    of Civil Procedure. The final decision rendered under Act 31
    of 1963 was binding on all the persons claiming an interest in    .B
    any land in the non-ryotwari area concerned notwithstanding
    that any such person had not preferred any application or
   'filed any statement or adduced any evidence or appeared or
    participated in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer,
    the Tribunal or the High Court, as the case may be.

            The appellants contended that their lands were neither    C
   whole inams or part inam villages and that they did not fall
   within the scope of Act 26 of 1'963. They contended that their
    lands were ordinary ryotwari ·lands and hence introduction of
    ryotwari settlement in respect of them did not arise. They
    pleaded that their lands in any event had to be treated as
  ,lands to which Act 30 of 1963 was applicable and they were         D
    entitled to reliefs under that Act. Similarly several other
    land-holders in the sam;e position in Pudukkotai area also
    raised same contentions and claimed similar reliefs, There
    was, however, agitation by the tenants who claimed to be in
    possession of the lands which were included in the inams in
    respect of which claims had been preferred by the appellants      E
    and several others in the capacity of ryots or minor inamdars.
    The tenants represented to the Government that most of the
    inams which had been dealt with or claimed to be falling under-
    ACt 30 of 1963 were part inam villages and they should also be
   ~rought within the scqpe of Act 26 of 1963. Some inamdars also
    preferred counter representations contending that some of even     F
    those brought within the scope of Act 26 of 1963 should be
    taken away from its purview. There was unrest in the villages
    concerned on account of the disputes between thB inamdars and
    the. tenants. Then the Government appointed a Special Officer
    to investigate into the tenure of these inams in Pudukkottai
    area. The Special Officer after holding thorough inquiry          G
     ir.commended that 116 part inam villages had to be brought
    within the purview of Act 26 of 1963. The Government decided
    to accept the said recommendation and thereafter introduced
    the Bill in the State Legislature which ultimately became the
    impug;,.ed Act of 1969. On the passing of the impugned Act any
     proceeding taken under Act 30 and Act 31 of 1963 in respect of   H
     436                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS        [.1986) l s.c.R.

A
      any such estate which was included within Schedule I-A of Act~
      26 of 1963 by virtue of the impugned Act was to have no effect
      and all pending proceedings in respect.of such estates had to
      abate and that amount paid if any under Act 30 of 1963 to any
      person was recoverable with interest at 3% per annum as if it
      were an arrear of land revenue. The land of the appellants
      which had been iilcluded in Schedule lA of Act 26 of 1963 were
B
      liable to be dealt with in accordance with Act 26 of 1963. In
    . clause lO(A) of section 2 of Act 26- of 1963 which was'
      introduced by the impugned Act by way of ru!<!ndment the expres-
      s ion 'notified date' in relation to a Pudukk.otai inam estate
      specified in Schedule lA meant the 15th February, 1965, The
      two provisos given thereunder made certain ancillary prov i-
c     s ions in regard to what was contained in section 2(10-A). By
      reason of the passing of the impugned Act in 1969 whatever
      rights the inamdars were claiming under Act 30 of 1963 and Act
      31 of 1963 came to an end and the rights and obligations
      imposed by Act 26 of 1963 which were more prejud:l.cial to the
      appellants and which conferred certain rights on the tenants,.-
D     coonenced to operate.
                                                   ,
           A reading of the provisions of Act 26 of 1963 clearly
     establishes that it was intended to bring about agrarian
     reform in tne State of Tamil Nadu in respect of the estates
     which were included in Schedule lA which included the lands of
E    the appellants also. It may be observed here that even
     granting for purposes of argument that the lands in question
     were ryotwari lands they would still come within the
     definition of the expression estate given in clause (2) o'f
     Article 31A of the Constitution. After the 17th Amendment ofa
     the Constitution the expression 'estate' for purposes of
F    Article 31A included within its scope (i) any jagir, inam or
     muafi or other similar grant and in the State of Tamil Nadu
     and Kerala, any janar right; (ii) any land held under ryotwari
     settlement; and (iii) any land held or let for purposes of
     agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, including waste
     land, forest land, land for pasture or sites of buildings and
G    other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricultura]j
     labourers and village artisans and the expression rights ,...in
     relation to an estate, included-any rights vesting in a pro-
     prietor, sub-proprietor, under-proprietor, tenure-holder,
     raiyat, under raiyat or other intermediary and any rights or
     privileges in respect of land revenue.
H
          S.T. CHETTIAR v. STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]       437

                                                                  A
      In Khajamian Wakf Estates etc. v. Sta:te of Madras & Anr.
[1971] 2 s.c.R. 790 and connected cases a Constitution Bench
was required to consider the constitutionality of (i) Act 26
of 196j as it stood before its amendment by the impugned Act;
(ii) Act 30 of 1963; and (iii) the Tamii Nadu Leaseho1ds
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryocwari) Act (27 of 1963).        B
These appeals had been filed against the decision of the
Madras High Court dated June 24, 1966. In the above decision
this court observed at pages 794-795 thus :

           "We do not think it necessary, to go into the
           contention that one or more provisions of the
           impugned Acts are violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31,    C
           as in our opinion these .Acts are completely
           protected by Art. 31A of the Constitution which
           says that:

           "Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13
           no law providing for -                                 D

           (a) the acquisition .by the State of any estate or
           of any rights therein or the extinguishment or
           modification of any such right •••••••••••••

           shall be deemed to be void on the.ground that it is    E
           inconsistent with, or takes aware or abridges any
           of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19
           or Article 31."

           The expression "estate" is defined in sub-Art. (2)
           of Article 31A. That definition includes not merely    F
           Inams but also land held under ryotwari s.ettlement
           as well as land held or let for the purpose of
           agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto,
           including waste land, forest land, land for
           pastures or site or buildings and other structures
           occupied by the cultivators of land, agriculturists    G
           and village artisans.

           The impugned Acts are laws providing for the
           acquisition by the State of an "estate" as
           contemplated by Art. 31A. They seek to abolish all
           intermediate holders and to establish direct           H
    438                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1986 J 1 s.c.R.

A
               relationship between the Government and the            i- _
               occupants   of    the   concerned    lands.   These
               legislations, were undertaken as a part of agrarian
               refor!ffi. Hence the provisions relating to
               acquisition or the extinguishment of the rights of
               the intermediate holders fall within the protective
B              wings of Art, 3 lA - see B. Sankara Rao Jwtam and
               Ors. v. State of Mysore and Anr. [1969] 3 s.c.R.
               1".

          It is therefore nq longer open to question before us
    about the applicability of Article 31A of the Constitution to
c   Act .26 of 1963. We do not find any substance in the contention
    urged on behalf of the appellants that since they had only a
    right to get the patta in respect of the lands on the date on
    which the impugned Act was passed in the year 1969 the subject
    matter of the legislation was not agricultural lands and
    therefore Article 31A of the Constitution was not applicable.
D   Clause (a) of Article 31A(I) which refers to the acquisition      ~
    by the State of any estate or of any rights or extinguishment
    or modification of any such rights would be applicable even to
    a right to get a patta in respect of an agricultural land and
    any law which affects such right also would be protected by
    Article 31A. No such law can be questioned on the ground that
E   it violates Article I4, Article I9 and Article 31.

         There is no substance in the plea of the appellants that
    the impugned Act had .encroached upon the judicial power of
    courts when it declared that the lands mentioned in Schedule
    IA which was added by the impugned Act were also inam estates. >
F   It is true that under Act 3I of 1963 it was open to the
    parties to seek a declaration before the Settlement Officer,
    the Tribunal, and the High Court regarding the nature of the
    tenure of the lands in question but by the impugned Act the
    State Legislature declared that Act 26 of 1963 was applicable
    to the lands included in Schedule IA. That became possible in
    the case of ryotwari lands after the Seventeenth Amendment of
    the Constitution on June 20, I964 with retrospective effect. --~
    The expression 'estate' in Article 3IA included a 'ryotwari'
    land also by virtue of that amendment. Even granting that the
    lands of the appellants were ryotwari lands they could be
    brought within Act 26 of I963 for purposes of agrarian reform.
H   They were declared as inam lands for purposes of Act 26 of
              s.r. CHETTIAR v. STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]       439


    1963 with retrospective effect from a date prior to the coming   A
-i into force of Act 26 of 1963. Any deClarai:ion that the lands
    were not inam estates would have been of no use. It may be
     that the inclusion of the lands of the appellants was
     violative of Article 14 but still the law is protected by
     Article 31A of the Constitution. We do not, therefore, find
    .any substance in this contention also.                          B

,        The lands of the appellants which have been included in
    Schedule lA to Act 26 of 1963 by the impugned Act passed in
    the year 1969 are liable to be dealt with under Act 26 of
    1963. The impugned Act does not suffer from any constitutional
    infirmity. The appeals, therefore, fail and they are             C
    dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.



    S.R.                                        Appeals dismissed.