Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard 38 appeals against the judgment and orders of the High Court of Orissa dated November 28, 1956, by which 42 writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellants and others were dismissed. The High Court certified the cases as fit for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 132(1) of the Constitution. The appellants were holders of pre-settlement minor inams in the State of Orissa. Their grants were made for performance of services of deities and were classed as Devadayam grants in the revenue papers. The grants were not of whole villages but of certain lands and hence classified as minor inams; they comprised both the melwaram and kudiwaram rights in the lands. The original Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Act 1 of 1952) abolished all estates of intermediaries and on notification by the Government, such estates vested in Government. The Bill resulting in the original Act was introduced on January 17, 1950, passed by the Legislative Assembly on September 28, 1951, reserved for the consideration of the President, who gave assent on January 23, 1952. The definition of 'estate' in Section 2(g) originally covered any land held by an intermediary and included under one entry in revenue registers, revenue-free lands not entered in any register, all classes of tenures or under-tenures, or an inam estate or part of an estate. The Orissa Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1954 (Act XXVII of 1954) substituted the definition of 'estate' to include apart of an estate and any land held by or vested in an intermediary included under one entry in any revenue roll or general register, revenue-free lands not entered in any register, all classes of tenures or under-tenures, and any jagir, inam, or muafi or other similar grant. The amending Act also inserted a provision in Section 3 declaring that lands, rights, and persons covered by the earlier definitions shall not cease to be covered merely because the definitions were amended and widened in scope. The amending Act was also reserved for the consideration of the President and assented to by him. The State Government issued Notification No.4971-XV-9154-E.A. dated July 15, 1955, under the amended Act. The appellants contended that the original Act and the amending Act were jointly or severally beyond the competence of the State Legislature and that the notification was void. They raised two main arguments. First, the benefit of Article 31A might have been available to the original Act but not to the amending Act, because the amending Act was not itself a law for compulsory acquisition of property for public purpose; it only amended a previous law by enlarging the definition of 'estate'. Second, the word 'estate' under the pre-amendment Section 2(g) did not apply to pre-settlement minor inams of lands, as it applied only to an 'inam estate', and 'inam estate' had the meaning given in the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, namely only whole inam villages. They relied on Section 2(q) of the Estates Abolition Act which provided that words not defined in the Act should have the same meaning as in the tenancy laws and rules in force in Orissa. The Supreme Court rejected the first argument as clearly untenable. It held that the benefit of Article 31A is available not only to laws which by themselves provide for compulsory acquisition but also to laws amending such laws, provided the amending Act is reserved for and assented to by the President. The Court observed that when the President assented to the amending Act, he assented to new categories of properties being brought within the operation of the existing acquisition law, which in effect was assent to a law for compulsory acquisition for public purpose of those new categories. On the second argument, the Court held that though the minor inams were not of whole villages and included both warams, they were nevertheless inams, and the Constitution defined an estate as including any inam. The ejusdem generis rule could not be applied to 'inam' in the definition of 'estate' in Article 31A(2)(a) because particular categories like 'jagir, inam or muafi' are included expressly, even though the rule may apply to 'other similar grants'. Therefore, the minor inams fell within the scope of the Abolition Act of 1951 as amended in 1954. The Court upheld the validity of the Orissa Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1954 and the impugned notification, dismissed the appeals, and held that the amending Act was within the protection of Article 31A of the Constitution.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Legislative Competence - Article 31A, Constitution of India - Validity of Amending Act Extending Compulsory Acquisition - Orissa Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1954 - The amending Act enlarged the definition of estate to include minor inams and was reserved for and assented to by the President; appellants contended that Article 31A protection was available only to laws that directly provide for acquisition, not to amending laws. Held that the President's assent to an amending Act which extends compulsory acquisition to new categories of property constitutes assent to the acquisition of those categories, and such amending Act is within the protection of Article 31A. B) Property Law - Interpretation of 'Inam' - Article 31A(2)(a), Constitution of India; Section 2(g) Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 as amended - Minor Inams of Lands Included - The appellants argued that 'estate' originally included only an 'inam estate' meaning whole inam villages under Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, and that pre-settlement minor inams of lands were not covered. Held that the ejusdem generis rule cannot be applied to 'inam' in Article 31A(2)(a) because 'jagir, inam or muafi' are expressly enumerated, though the rule may apply to 'other similar grants'; thus 'inam' includes any inam including minor inams, even if not of whole villages, and they fell within the amended Act.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Orissa Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1954 was beyond the competence of the State Legislature and not protected by Article 31A of the Constitution; whether pre-settlement minor inams of lands (not whole villages) fell within the definition of 'estate' under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 as amended and under Article 31A(2)(a).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all 38 appeals, upheld the validity of the Orissa Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1954 and the impugned notification dated July 15, 1955, and held that the amending Act was within the protection of Article 31A of the Constitution. The Court rejected the argument that the amending Act was not a law for compulsory acquisition and held that 'inam' in Article 31A(2)(a) included minor inams, so the acquisition was valid.
Law Points
- Article 31A protects amending Acts extending compulsory acquisition to new categories of property when assented to by President
- ejusdem generis rule does not apply to expressly enumerated terms like inam
- 'inam' in Article 31A(2)(a) includes minor inams of lands
- President's assent to amending Act constitutes assent to acquisition of new categories
- amending Act need not independently provide for acquisition
