Mohd. Shaukat Hussain Khan Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh  INSC 116 (2 May 1974)
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
CITATION: 1974 AIR 1480 1975 SCR (1) 429 1974
SCC (2) 376
CITATOR INFO :
D 1986 SC 515 (105,106)
Hyderabad Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and
Amendment Act No. 10 of 1956--Repealed by Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Inams Act 9 of 1967 passed by the Andhra Pradesh
Legislature--Whether the Inam Act of 1955 revived on striking down of Act No. 9
of 1967 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh--Whether Abkari rights subsisting
on the Inam lands were also abolished by the Inam Abolition Act of
1955--Whether compensation payable under section 12 of 1955 Act includes
compensation for abolition of Abkari rights.
The appellant was holder of the Inam lands
with abkari rights granted by the Nizam. By virtue of the said rights.
the appellant was entitled to the full income
of the rental licence fee for running liquor shops. tree tax and for tree
owners' fee. The principal inam was abolished by the Hyderabad Inams Abolition
Act 1955 (and also by Act 10 of 1956). The Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed
Act No. 9 of 1967 repealing the 1955 and 1956 Acts. Act 9 of 1967 provided for
the vesting of the Inam lands in the State without payment of compensation to
the Inamdars. The Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Act No. 9 of 1967.
Acting under the provision of the 1955 Act the State denied the enjoyment of
Abkari right to the appellant. He therefore filed a suit. Having lost before
the trial court, and the High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court
with the following contentions; (i) that the striking down of Act 9 of 1967
does not result in the revival of the Inam Abolition Act, 1955; (ii) that the
Abkari rights are not included in the 'Inam' and were, therefore, not abolished
by the Abolition Act; (iii) the Abolition Act does not provide for compensation
for abolition of Abkari rights and was therefore hit by Art. 31 (2) of the
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (i) The result of the striking down of
Act 9 of 1967 was to revive the Abolition Act of 1955. The High Court was right
in holding that the Inam lands had already vested in the State under the
Abolition Act and. therefore, on the date when Act No. 9 of 1967 was passed,
there was neither any estate which could be abolished nor was there any
necessity to effect any agrarian reform. [434G] (ii) Under Sec. 2(2) of the
inam Abolition Act, 1955, words and expressions used in the Act but not defined
shall have the same meaning assigned to the said words in the Land Revenue Act
1317 Fasli, Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 and Hyderabad
Atiyat Enquiries Act 1952 and the rules there under. S. 2(1-b) of the Andhra
Pradesh Revenue Act 8 of 1317 Fasli defines land as including all kinds of
benefit pertaining to lands or things attached to the earth or permanently
fastened to earth and also includes shares in or charges on. the revenue or
rent which are or may be levied on villages, or-other defined areas. The right
to tap or derive benefit from trees standing on the lands is a right
appurtenant to the lands because a thing attached to the land is itself a part
of the land and is immovable property. Haque Malakana which-is the right in trees
is therefore a right appurtenant to the land. When any Inam land vests in the
Govt., the right to tap trees standing on the land also vests in the Govt.
There cannot be any separation of these rights when the tree is still a part of
the land. Right to receive rental or licence fee ('Baithak') for running sendhi
shops at Inam lands appertains to the ownership of the land. [436E; 437H;
438BC] State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratap  2 S.C.R. 382.
[wherein it is held that the right of the
proprietor of an estate to hold a 'Mela' on his own land is a right in
"estate being appurtenant to his ownership of the land" relied upon.]
430 Under Sec. 3(1) of the Abolition Act, vesting of the Inams in the Govt. is
to take place notwithstanding any judgment decree or order of a Civil, Revenue
or Atiyat Court. Thus Abkari rights being part of the Inam lands vest in the
Govt., with the Abolition of the Inams. [438C] (iii) Abkari rights being part
of the Inam and having been vested in the State, the compensation that payable
u/s.12 of the Abolition Act is inclusive of the Abkari rights.
As the Hyderabad Inams Abolition Act 1955 is
a legislation intended to give effect to agrarian reforms by making the land
available to the landless, compensation provided u/s.
12 cannot be challenged. [439B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 1637 of 1967.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and
decree dated the 19th December 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.C.C.
Appeal No. 57 of 1961.
M. N. Phadke, A. G. Menezes, J. B.
Dadachanji, O. C.Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair for the
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. The appellant had filed a suit against the respondent,
State of Andhra Pradesh, for a declaration that the abkari rights of the
appellant in the suit inam lands were not abolished when the inams, which
included the inams granted to, him were abolished under the Hyderabad Inams
Abolition Act, 1955, and, therefore, he was entitled to the full income namely
'Baithak' of Sendhi shops (rental or licence fee or right of sale), tree tax,
Haque Malikana (tree owners' fee) and for recovery of the said abkari income
from the respondent. This suit was dismissed against which an appeal was filed
in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was dismissed. Against that judgment
this appeal is by certificate.
The appellant is the maktedar of the suit
inam lands situate in Sardarnagar and Kurvaguda in Hyderabad District. The
grant by the Nizam of the Makta in favour of his predecessors-in-interest in
respect of Sardarnagar inam lands was by muntakab (decree) Ex. P-1 dated August
15, 1944. This grant was in perpetuity with specific term 'Ba Hama-Abwab' (with
all sources of income) and 'Bila-QuiyameHaqe-Sirkar' (without any deduction as
Government share). A similar muntakab Ex. P-2 was granted by the Atiyat Court
in respect of the 'Arazi Maktha' (minor inam) of inam lands of Kurva guda
village. The appellant enjoyed all the rights granted to him under the
respective muntakabs which included the right of selling Sendhi shops,
collection of tree tax and other similar rights. Earlier the erstwhile
Hyderabad Government by its order dated 22nd Isfendar 1355 F.
corresponding to 24th January 1946 acquired
the right of the appellant in respect of selling opium, ganja and the right of
distilling liquor by payment of compensation but it did not acquire the right
of selling Sendhi or tree tax,Haque Malikana and licence fee in respect of
which Government was making annual payments till July 19, 1955 when on the
abolition of the inams under the Hyderabad Inams Abolition Act 8 of 1955
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Abolition Act') the inams granted to 431 the
appellant became vested in the Government. Thereafter the Government
discontinued payment of Baithak of Sendhi shops and tree tax under the wrong
impression that Hyderabad Abolition Act prohibited any such payment. On April
20, 1956 the Abolition Act was amended by Act 10 of 1956 whereby the provisions
relating to payment of compensation were superseded while those relating to
vesting continued in force. The Government therefore issued a circular to the
effect that all amounts collected as land revenue from the erstwhile inam lands
including the inam lands of the appellant were to be kept in a suspense
account. From December 5, 1957 the Sendhi rights in Sardarnagar lands i.e.
Haque Malikana, licence fee were recognised
by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.0. 2254. It may be mentioned that the
provisions of the Act relating to compensation were to come into force on and
from a notified date so much so that even after more than three years of the
Abolition Act no notification as provided under subsection 3(b) of section 1
was published to bring into effect the provisions relating to compensation.
Thus it was contended that no principles of
payment of compensation under the Abolition Act for only land revenue was taken
into consideration but no rights of the appellant as referred to in s. 3 (2)
(a) were taken into consideration. It was further stated that as s. 3 (2) (b)
was not taken into account and as ss. 12 to 14 of the Act do not contain any
provisions for adequate and fair compensation in respect of the right, the
provisions ire invalid and ultra vires of the Constitution.
The respondent, the State of Andhra Pradesh,
contended that by virtue of the Abolition Act all inams vested in the
Government and hence all rights of the appellant had also vested in the
Government. No compensation is therefore payable to the appellant separately
for each item of right but as a whole for the inam which was abolished and
vested in the Government. Nothing was therefore due or payable to the
appellant. The trial Judge however found that under s.
3 (24) of the Abolition Act, Abkari rights
are also included so the term inam would include these rights also and that ss.
17 to 20 show the mode for determining total compensation payable in respect of
inams: so it cannot be said that the aspect of compensation for the Abkari right
is not covered by the Act. It accordingly dismissed the suit.
In appeal against that judgment the High
Court also held that Abkari rights are not granted independently splitting them
from the inams and since all rights, title and interest in the inam lands have
been abolished by the Abolition Act which on an interpretation of s. 3(2) (b)
of the Act read with the definition of land in Land Revenue Act 1317 F.
would also vest the Abkari rights of the
inamdar in the Government. As the appellant's rights have been extinguished his
suit was held to be rightly dismissed and consequently the appeal also was
The simple question in this case, therefore,
is whether the inams granted under Exs. P-1 and P-2 vested in the Government
along with the Abkari rights as contended by the respondent or is it only the
lands 432 that have vested in the Government on the abolition of the inams
without the Abkari rights which still vest in the appellant as contended by the
appellant. In the alternative, it was prayed that if the effect of the
Abolition Act is that the Abkari rights also vest in the Government, then the
law itself is invalid inasmuch as the Abkari rights which are property have
been taken away contrary to the provisions of Art. 31(2) of the Constitution without
payment of compensation' It was further submitted that as the Abolition Act is
not an agrarian reform, it did not get the protection of Art. 31A of the
Constitution. In any case, the original Abolition Act, namely, The Hyderabad
Abolition of Inams Act 8 of 1955 was enacted prior to the Seventh Amendment of
the Constitution which came into force on November 1, 1956. Accordingly on a
construction of the relevant entries in List II and List III the Hyderabad
Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact the statute. All these
submissions, as has been noticed already, were rejected by both the Courts. It
may however be mentioned that when the appeal against the judgment of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh was pending in this Court, the Andhra Pradesh
Legislature passed The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act 9
of 1967 repealing the earlier Abolition Act 8 of 1955 as amended by Act 10 of
1956 and vesting all the inams in the Government from July 20, 1955. A writ
petition (W.P. No. 78 of 1969) was filed in this Court challenging the validity
of Act 9 of 1967.
During the pendency of these proceedings in
this Court, several writ petitions were also filed in the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh challenging the validity of Act 9 of 1967.
That Court by its judgment dated March 31,
1970 held all the provisions of Act 9 of 1967 to be invalid and accordingly
struck down the entire Act. The State however did not appeal against the said
judgment. It may also be mentioned that the State of Andhra Pradesh published a
notification on October 20, 1973 under S. 1(3)(b) of the Abolition Act by which
all the provisions of that Act and in particular the sections relating to
compensation, namely, ss. 12, 13, 14 and 16 were enforced from November 1,
1973. It is stated before us that in view of-this position, the appellant
withdrew his writ petition No. 78 of 1969 which was dismissed as infructuous so
that the present appeal is the only one that has now to be considered.
The learned advocate for the appellant has
urged that the effect of striking down Act 9 of 1967 by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh was not to revive Act 8 of 1955 as amended by Act 10 of 1956
which being dead could not be revived.
Accordingly the vesting of the inams in the
Government under the repealed Acts 8 of 1955 and 10 of 1956 has no legal
validity. Secondly, it is contended that even assuming that Act 8 of 1955 and
Act 10 of 1956 are revived, these Acts are constitutionally invalid on two
grounds urged before the High Court, namely (i) for want of legislative
and (ii) as the law takesaway property
without compensation it conflicts with the provisions of Art. 31(2) of the
Constitution and is therefore invalid. Thirdly, on a proper construction of S.
12 of the Abolition Act it would appear that there is no provision made for
payment of compensation for taking away the Abkari rights of the appellant
inasmuch as the compensation that has been provided for under the Act is in
respect of the lands and not the Abkari rights. The law also does not got the
protection of Art.
433 31A of the Constitution as the abolition
of Abkari rights is not in furtherance of agrarian reforms. Alternatively, it
was contendedthat upon a proper construction of the provisions of Act 8 of
1955,the Abkari rights of the appellant were not affected inasmuch as bythe
definition of the term 'Inam' what was vested was the land or the rights
arising from the land and not the rights which are acquiredand granted decors
of any rights in land.
A few of the contentions which are not res
integra may be disposed of. For instance, the contention that Act 8 of 1955 and
Act 10 of 1956, even if they are revived, are constitutionally invalid as they
have been enacted by a Legislature not competent to enact the same, and' secondly
the Abolition Act 8 of 1955 is not in furtherance of agrarian reforms. On the
first contention it may be observed that this Court in B. Shankara Rao Badani
& Ors. v.State of Mysore Anr.(1) pointed out that where the petitioner's
village were vested in the State of Mysore under s.1(4) of the Mysore (Personal
and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, and it was contended that the,
compensation provided by the Mysore Act was not the market value of the
property at the time of acquisition there was a violation of-Art. 31(2) and
secondly the Mysore Act was beyond the legislative competence of the Mysore
Legislature under Entry 36 of List II and' Entry 42 of List III to the Seventh
Schedule as the Entries stood be-fore the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution,
because (i) the, existence of public purpose and the obligation to pay
compensation are necessary concomitants of compulsory acquisition of property,
and so, the term acquisition must be construed as importing by necessary
implication the two conditions of public purpose and payment of adequate
compensation, and (ii) the words 'subject to the provisions of Entry 42, List
III' in Entry 36 of List II reinforce the argument that a law with respect to
acquisition of property made under Entry 36, should be exercised subject to the
twofold restriction as to public purpose and payment of compensation both of
which are referred to in, Entry 42, List III. It was held by this Court that
the legislation was undertaken as a part of agrarian reform which the Mysore
State Legislature proposed to bring about in the State. Therefore, the
impugned' Mysore Act was a law providing for the acquisition by the State of
any estate or of any rights therein or for the extinguishment or modification of
such rights as contemplated by Art. 3 1 A and hence, the impugned Act was
protected from attack in any Court on the ground that it contravened Art.
31(2). Secondly, it was also held that the entries in the Lists of the Seventh
Schedule were designed to define and delimit the respective areas of
legislative competence of the Union and State Legislature and the principle of
the maximum expressum facit cassare tacitum makes it inappropriate to treat the
obligation to pay compensation as implicit in Entry 33 of List I or Entry 36 of
List II when it is separately and expressly provided for in Art.31(2). Thirdly,
the words 'subject to the provisions of Entry 42 List III' mean no more than
that any law made under Entry 36 by a State Legislature can be displaced or
overridden by the Union Legislature making a law:
(1)  3 S.C.R. 1.
434 under Entry 42 of List III. If the
restrictive condition as to public purpose and payment of compensation are to
be derived from these words, their absence in Entry 33 of List I leads to the
unreasonable inference that Parliament can make law authorising acquisition of
property without a public purpose and without a provision for compensation.
The 'true inference is that the power to make
a law, belonging both to Parliament and State Legislatures, can be exercised
subject to the two restrictions not by reason of anything contained in the
legislative entries but by reason of the positive provisions in Art. 31(2). But
as legislation failing within Art. 31A cannot be called in question in a court
for non-compliance with those provisions in Art.
31(2) such legislation cannot be struck down
as unconstitutional and void, In view of this decision, the question of lack of
legislative competence was not pressed.
The entire case of the appellant, therefore,
rests on two short submissions, namely, (1) that the striking down of Act 9 of
1967 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against which there has been no appeal
to this Court and the withdrawal of writ petition No. 78 of 1969 filed in this
Court would not revive the Abolition Act, and if they are revived, the abkari
rights which are not a part of the inam rights, they are not touched by the
provisions of the Act.
Alternatively, even if the provisions of the
revived Acts deal with such rights, though these rights are separate rights,
compensation ought to have been provided for separately and since this has not
been done the law is violative of Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution.
On the main question whether the impugned
Acts were revived by reason of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh striking down
Act 9 of 1967. a perusal of that judgment would show that the Division 'Bench
considered the question and held that as the inam had already vested in the
Government on July 20, 1955, there was no need to abolish inams which already
stood abolished long before the date when the impugned Act, namely, Act 9 of
1967, was enacted. The right to patta having been acquired, the only purpose
behind the impugned Act 9 of 1967 was to deprive the inamdars of their compensation,
and to deny the payment of compensation to the inamdars and others who were
entitled to the same under the repealed Act. After stating thus, the Division
Bench further observed:
"The result of the above said analysis
is that on the date when the impugned Act was made, there was neither any
estate which could be abolished nor there was any necessity ,to effect any
agrarian reform in so far as inams were concerned had already been done under
the Act repealed. If 'the Government did not choose to implement the Act for nine
months and then preferred to postpone the payment of compensation or grant of
patta, that would hardly alter the position. The effect of the impugned Act in
pith and substance is really not agrarian reform but to destroy the rights ,of
the inamdars and others who were assured compensation under the repealed Act.
Thus the Act although pretends to enact a law relating to agrarian reform in
spirit' and in 435 effect it is a device to deprive the inamdars and other
persons of their acquired rights under the repealed Act." The striking
down of Act 9 of 1967 must be construed in the light of the reasoning given by
the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that
the Abolition Act 8 of 1955 and the Amendment Act 10 of 1956 had already
achieved the result which Act 9 of 1967 was intended to achieve, and once the
inams had already vested in the Government, compensation had to be paid in
accordance with the terms of those laws and cannot again be reopened by vesting
the inams which had already vested as if they had not already vested in the
Government. This postulates the existence, of the Acts impugned before us as a
ground for striking down Act 9 of 1967, so that when the High Court says that.
the latter Act 9 of 1967 is void it could not have intended to say that even
the Acts, now impugned before us did not revive. What the Court implied by
declaring Act 9 of 1967 void is that it was nonest and that no such law could
be passed in respect of a subject-matter which has already vested in the
Government : see Deep Chand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others(1). If so
Act 8 of 1955 as amended by Act 10 of 1956 have been held to be in force and
that compensation was to be paid in accordance therewith.
The decision cited by the learned Advocate
for the appellant in B. N. Tiwari v. Union of India & Others(2)--is
inapplicable. In that case the Ministry of Home Affairs by a resolution in 1950
had declared reservation in favour of scheduled castes and tribes and had. made
a rule in 1952 for carry forward, whereby the unfilled reserved vacancies of a
particular year would be carried forward for one year only.
In 1955 the above rule was substituted by
another rule providing that the unfilled reserved vacancies of a particular
year would be carried forward for two years. The court held that when the 1952
carry forward rule was substituted by another rule in 1955, the former rule
ceased to exist when 1955 rule was declared unconstitutional in T.
Devadasan v. Union of India(3), as such there
was no carry forward rule in existence in 1960. In these circumstances the
question that was considered was whether the carry forward rule of 1952 could
still be said to exist. This Court took the view that the carry forward rule of
1952 having been substituted by the carry forward rule of 1955, the former rule
clearly ceased to exist because its place was taken by the carry forward rule
of 1955. Thus by promulgating the new carry forward rule of 1955, the
Government of India itself cancelled the carry forward rule of 1952.
Therefore, when this Court struck down the
carry forward rule as modified in 1955 that did not mean that the carry forward
rule of 1952 which had already ceased to exist because the Government of India
its if can celled it and had substituted a modified rule in 1955 in its place,
could revive. In the case before us it had attempted to do something which the
Legislature could not do namely to abolish inams which did not exist and which
had already vested in the Government and (1)  Supp.(2) S.C.R. 8. (2)
 2 S.C.R. 421.
(3) A.I.R.  S.C. 179.
436 which the Legislature could not abolish
again. In these circumstances, the repeal of an enactment, which had already
been given effect was a device for depriving the inamdars whose rights had been
abolished, of their right of compensation, and was accordingly struck down as
still-born, null and void, as such unconstitutional from its inception and
cannot have the effect as if it had repealed the previous Acts. On this
analysis the provisions of Acts 8 of 1955 as amended by Act 10, of 1956 could
not be held to have been repealed it all, and therefore they are in existence.
The question that now remains is whether Act
8 of 1955 as amended by Act 10 of 1956 abolishes the Abkari rights also, and if
so, whether the compensation provided in the aforesaid Acts includes those
rights also. On the first question S. 2(1) (c) of the Abolition Act defines
'inam' as meaning land held under a gift or a grant made by the Nizam or by any
Jagirdar, holder of a Samathan or other competent granter and continued or
confirmed by virtue of a muntakhab or other title deed, with or without the
condition of service and coupled with the remission of the whole or part of the
land revenue thereon and entered as such in village records and includes-(i)
aresi makhta, arazi agrahar and seri inam; and (ii) lands held as inam by
virtue of long possession and entered as inam in the village records.
"Inamdar" under S. 2(1)(d) of the
Abolition means a person holding an inam or a share therein, either for his own
benefit or in trust and includes the successor in interest of an inamdar etc.
Under sub-s. (2) of s. 2 words and expressions used in this Act (Abolition Act
8 of 1955) but not defined therein shall have the meaning assigned to them in
the Land Revenue Act, 1317, Fasli. the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1950, and the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 and the rules
thereunder. The provisions whereunder the inam has been abolished, in so far as
they are relevant in this case, are sub-s. (1) of s. 3 which provides that
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any usage, settlement,
contract, grant, sanad, order or other instrument, Act, regulation, rules or
order having the force of law and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order
of a Civil, Revenue or Atiyat Court, and with effect from the date of vesting,
all inams to which this Act is made applicable under sub-section (2) of section
1 of this Act shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the
State. Clauses (a), (b), (c)-and (d) of sub-s. (2) of S. 3of the Abolition Act
which are also material are as follows :
"S. 3(2) Save as expressly provided by
or under the provisions of this Act and with effect from the date of vesting,
the following consequences shall ensure, namely:
(a)the provisions of Land Revenue Act, Fasli
relating to inams, and the provisions of the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act,
1952, and other enactments, rules, regulations land circulars in force in
respect of Atiyat grants shall, to the extent, they are repugnant, to the
provisions of this Act, not apply and the provisions of the Land Revenue Act,
1317 Fasli, relating to unalienated lands for purposes of land revenue, shall
apply to the said inams;
437 (b)all rights, title and interest vesting
in the inamdar kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant protected tenant and
non-protected tenant in respect of the inam land, other than the interests
expressly saved by or under provisions of this Act and including those in all
communal lands, cultivated and uncultivated lands (whether assessed or not),
waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and
streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be
vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances;
(c)all such inam lands shall be liable to
payment of land revenue;
(d)all rents and land revenue including
cesses and royalties, accruing in respect of such inam lands, on or after the
date of vesting, shall be payable to the State and not to the inamdar, and any
payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid." Under s.
4 of the Abolition Act every inamdar shall, with effect from the date of
vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other
than those specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of that section.
Similarly under S. 5 every kabiz-e-kadim
shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an
occupant in respect of such inam lands in his possession which were under his
personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately owns and
cultivates personally, are equal to four and a half times the 'family holding'.
Under sub-s. (2) of S. 4 the: kabiz-e-kadim
shall be entitled to compensation from the Government as provided for under the
Abolition Act in respect of Inam lands, in his possession in excess of the
limit specified in sub-s. (1) whether cultivated or not. Section 12 of the
Abolition Act provides for determination of compensation payable to the inamdar
and provides thus :
"The compensation payable to the inamdar
for the inams abolished under section 3 shall be the aggregate of the sums
specified below :(i)in respect of inam lands registered in the name of the
inamdar and kabiz-e-kadim under sections 4 and 5, a sum equal to twenty times
the difference between land revenue and judi or quit-rent;
(ii)in respect of income accruing to the
inamdar from the lands registered in the names of his permanent tenant,
protected tenant and non-protected tenant a sum equal to sixty per cent of the
premium charged as the case may be, under sections 6, 7 and 8." Section
2(1-b) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act 8 of 1317 Fasli defines 'land' as
including all kinds of benefits pertaining to land, or things attached to the
earth, or permanently fastened to 438 things attached to the, earth and also
includes shares in, or charges on, the revenue or rent which are or may be
levied on villages, or other defined areas.
A combined reading of the provisions of the
Abolition Act with the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act shows that the
Legislature had by abolishing inams intended to abolish all rights vested in
the inam lands which had been granted to the inamdar. The right to tap or
derive benefit from trees standing on the lands is a right appurtenant to the
lands because a thing attached to the land is itself a part of the land and is
immovable property. Haque Malakana which is the right in trees is therefore a
right appurtenant to the land so that when any inam land vests in the
Government, the right to tap trees standing on the land also vests in the
Government. There cannot be any separation of these rights when the tree is
still part of the land. There can be no doubt that on publication of the
notification under sub-s.
(1) of s. 3 of the Abolition Act all inams
were abolished and vested in the State. The inams which were so abolished and
vested in the State include in it all rights, title and interests in the inams
by virtue of clause (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the Abolition Act. Such rights
as are intended to be saved are those that are saved by the express provisions
contained in the Abolition Act. It is, therefore, clear that all rights, title
and interest vesting in the Inamdar would include the Abkari rights in the
trees., This conclusion of ours is supported by the definition of 'land' in s.
2(1-b) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act which has to be imported into the
definition of 'inam land' and' which includes any rights in or over such
property of benefits accruing from the land or things attached to the land and
will also include shares in the charges on the revenue or rent.
This Court had in State of Bihar v. Rameshwar
Pratap Narain Singh(1) while dealing with the validity of the Bihar Land Reform.
Amendment Act of 1959 considered the question whether the right of a proprietor
of an estate to hold a 'mela' on his own land was a right in the estate, and
held that "the right to hold a 'Mela' has always been considered in this
country to be an interest in land, an interest which the owner of the land can
transfer to another along with the land or without the land. There can be no
doubt therefore that the right of the proprietor of any estate to hold a 'Mela'
on his own land is a" right in the estate being appurtenant to his
ownership of the land. Under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the Abolition Act vesting of
the inams is notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a Civil, Revenue
or Atiyat Court. In other words, notwithstanding anything in the Muntakhab all
the inams to which the Abolition Act is made applicable shall be deemed to have
been abolished and shall vest in the State with effect from the date of
We have noticed already that the inam granted
to the appellant under the Muntakhab is with "all sources of income"
i.e. 'Ba-Hama-Abwab' which rights are not granted independently of the Maktha
or (1)  2 S.C.R. 382.
439 inam land but are granted as part of the
inam land so that when inam land vests, the rights which the inamdar had in the
land including 'Hama Abwab' i.e. Abkari rights also vest in the State. On this
conclusion it is clear that the Abkari rights being part of the inam and having
vested in the State, the compensation that is payable under s. 12 of the
Abolition Act is inclusive of the Abkari rights. As the abolition of inams is a
legislation intended to give effect to agrarian reforms by making the land
available to persons who have no lands, compensation provided for under s. 12
cannot be challenged. The scheme of compensation under the Abolition Act is
that four and a half times the family holding is to be retained by the inamdar
and in respect of the rest of it a patta is given to the tenants which even
with respect to them, along with any lands they own and cultivate personally,
be equal to four and a half times the family holding. If after providing for
these two items there remains any balance left the Government is required to
pay compensation whether to the inamdar or to the tenants who have excess of
land in their possession.
In any view of the matter we think that the
judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh cannot be assailed. We accordingly
dismiss the appeal with costs.