Pandaravakapattom and Travancore Royal Proclamations of 1040 (1865) and 1061 (1886)

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Can the Government ‘Lease-out’ Lands after 1061 (1886) Travancore Pattom Proclamation?

  • Answer: Yes; It is a Civil Right of every Owner of Properties.

Will the lease-character, of the Govt. leases after 1061, be lost (because of the 1040 and 1061 Proclamations) at the moment it is made, for it is “Pandaravaka-pattom”.

  • Answer: No; Proprietary rights as “Pandaravaka-pattom” are conferred only to Govt. leases prior to 1886 (1061 ME ).
  • (Note: Same is the situation in Cochin also. The crucial year is 1905)

Introduction

During the second half of 18th century major portion of the lands, in both (erstwhile) Travancore and Cochin kingdoms (of Kerala State), were brought under the respective Government administration and these lands were called Sircar or Pandaravaka lands.

Verumpattom in Cochin & ‘Pandarapattom‘ in Travancore are ‘Estate’ under Article 31A

  • In Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 694, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court held that in the erstwhile Cochin State, Pandaravaka Verumpattom were proprietors of the lands and hold the lands subject to the liability to pay the assessment to the State, and therefore Pandaravaka verumpattom could be regarded as local equivalent of an ‘estate’* under clause (2) of Article 31A of the Constitution.
    • * (Note: Estate denotes, generally, property ownership)
  • Five-Judge-Bench in Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez, 1971 Ker LT 1: AIR 1971 Ker 168, held that Pandarapattom land in the Travancore area of the Kerala State satisfies even the orthodox definition   of ownership by Austin, and was ‘estate’ within the meaning of Article 31A(2)(a) of the Constitution.

Travancore – Padmanabha Swamy Temple and ‘Bhandara Vaka’ Lands

The powerful King, Marthandavarma who ruled Travancore from 1729 to 1758, was successful in bringing all people and properties of Travancore (Southern Kingdom at present Kerala) under his administration; and collected tax from all lands except those that were expressly exempted.

The King of Travancore placed himself (trippadi-danam) as the servant of the deity. The entire assets of Travancore were regarded as the property that belonged to the Treasury or Offertory (Bhandaram in Malayalam; Pandaram in Tamil) of the Principal deity – Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple at Thiruvanamthapuram.

Connected Blogs:

Royal Pattom Proclamation of 1040 ME (1865 AD) – Magna Carta in Land Reforms

During the second half of the 19th century several Royal Proclamations were promulgated with a view to confer rights in the land to the tenants who were the real cultivators. Majority of the people were engaged in agriculture; but the lands belonged to Jenmies (Sircar, Brahmins or Devaswoms). The cultivators held the land under lease arrangement known as Pattom, Otti, Inam and Viruthi etc. One of the important Regulations came in the line of agrarian reforms was the Royal Proclamation of 1040 ME (1865 AD). It pertained to Pattom (lease) tenements created (by Sircar) on Sirkar lands known as Pandaravaka lands. It is exalted as the Magna Carta of peasants of Travancore it being led to conferring land to tillers, step by step.

The Proclamation of 1040 reads thus:

“PROCLAMATION

By His Highness the Maha Rajah of Travancore, issued under date the 2nd June 1865, corresponding to the 21st Edavam 1040.

Whereas we earnestly desire that the possession of landed as well as other property in Our territory should be as secure as possible; and whereas We are of opinion that, with this view, Sirkar Pattom lands can be placed on a much better footing than at present so as to enhance their value; We are pleased to notify to Our ryots

  • Istly- that the Sirkar hereby and for ever surrenders, for the benefit of the people all optional power over the following classes of lands, whether wet, garden or dry, and whether included in the Ayacut accounts or registered since:
  • Ven Pattom, Vettolivoo Pattom, Maraya Pattom, Olavoo Pattom, Mara Pattom, and all such Durkast Pattom the tax of which is understood to be fixed till the next Survey and Assessment;
  • 2ndly. that the ryots holding these lands may regard them fully as private, heri-table, saleable, and otherwise transferable, property;
  • 3rdly. accordingly, the sales, mortgages, & e., of these lands will hence-forward be valid; may be effected on stamped cadjans and will be duly registered; the lands may be sold for arrears of tax, in execution of decrees of Courts and such other legitimate purposes, and may also be accepted as security by the Sirkar as well as by private individuals;
  • 4thly. that the holders of the lands in question may rest assured that they may enjoy them undisturbed so long as the appointed assessment is paid;
  • 5thly. that the said holders are hence-forth at full liberty to lay out labour and capital on their lands of the aforesaid description to any extent they please, being sure of continued and secure possession;
  • 6thly. that the aforesaid description of lands will be resumable by the Sirkar like Jenmom and other private lands only for purely public purposes, as for instance, for making roads, canals, public buildings, & e., and when resumed for such purposes compensation will be paid by the Sirkar not for improvements only as here to fore, but equal, to the full market value of such lands;
  • 7thly. that the foregoing concessions are not however to be understood to affect in any way the rights of the Sirkar to regulate the land tax, to resume escheats, to confiscate the property of criminals, and generally such rights as have heretofore been exercised upon all property in general;
  • 8thly. that it is to be understood that when Pattom land being a portion of a holding, is transferred to a pauper, with the view of defrauding the Sirkar of the tax due to it, the Sirkar will have the right of apportioning the tax so as to prevent loss of revenue; and,
  • 9thly. (Repealed by Proclamation dated the 5th Karkadakam 1059). (Quoted in: Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86 : Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez Vs Albert Fernandez, AIR 1971 Ker 168; 1971 Ker LT 1.)

Royal Proclamation of 1061 (1886) Brings in Further Radical Changes

Paragraph 9 of the Proclamation of 1061 says, with reference to Royal Proclamation of the 21st Edavam 1040, as regards Pandarapattam lands, as under:

  • “these lands were originally the absolute property of Government, and the tenants were mere tenants-at-will; but, by the Royal Proclamation of the 21st Edavam 1040, Government generously waived all right to these lands, and declared them to be the private, hereitable, saleable property of the holders.”

Section 22 of the Settlement Proclamation of 1061 (1886) made radical changes in land tenure.

Those changes were:

  • (1)   no debt shall be recognised as due to the holder;
  • (2) no interest shall be deducted from the Pattom on such debt;  
  • (3) no reduction of debt or a corresponding enhancement of the Sirkar demand shall be made when such properties were transferred by sale.
  • The properties held on the tenures in question shall be recognised as so many favourably assessed lands or Inams and confirmed to the holders as such.

Clause 7 of Section 24 of the Proclamation provided as under:

  • “There shall be no further interference on the part of the Government with these free holds, except such as might be necessary for the punctual realization of the quit rent payable”.(Quoted in: Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86.)

Proclamation of 1040 (1865) – No Proprietary Rights; But, Permanency to Cultivators

Till 1040 ME (1865 AD), the agriculturists, who held the Pandaravaka (Govt.) lands under Pattom arrangement, were liable to be treated as mere tenants-at-will; the land being resumable (by the Government) at any time, as they were in the nature of temporary leases just like tenements created by private jenmis.

The Pattom Proclamation of 1040 (1865) converted the pattom arrangement on pandaravaka lands into permanent leases and conferred on the holders thereof permanent rights of occupancy, heritable and alienable. Though the Proclamation of 1040 ME did not expressly confer full proprietary rights on tenants, it gave the tenants permanency in the Pandaravaka soil; and it recorded the fist gigantic step towards the land reforms in Travancore.

Royal Proclamation of 1061 (1886) Brings in Further Radical Changes

Paragraph 9 of the Proclamation of 1061 says, with reference to Royal Proclamation of the 21st Edavam 1040, as regards Pandarapattam lands, as under:

  • “these lands were originally the absolute property of Government, and the tenants were mere tenants-at-will; but, by the Royal Proclamation of the 21st Edavam 1040, Government generously waived all right to these lands, and declared them to be the private, hereitable, saleable property of the holders.”

Section 22 of the Settlement Proclamation of 1061 (1886) made radical changes in land tenure.

Those changes were:

  • (1)   no debt shall be recognised as due to the holder;
  • (2) no interest shall be deducted from the Pattom on such debt;  
  • (3) no reduction of debt or a corresponding enhancement of the Sirkar demand shall be made when such properties were transferred by sale.
  • The properties held on the tenures in question shall be recognised as so many favourably assessed lands or Inams and confirmed to the holders as such.

Clause 7 of Section 24 of the Proclamation provided as under:

  • “There shall be no further interference on the part of the Government with these free holds, except such as might be necessary for the punctual realization of the quit rent payable”. (Quoted in: Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86.)

Sale of Janmam Properties were Recorded as “Thettoms” in Settlement Register

In 1910 Travancore Settlement Register (and in the sale deeds), lands sold by Janmam holders were recorded as “Thettoms” (Devaswom Thettom/Namboori Thettom etc.).

  • Note: In the 1910 Settlement Register Janmam properties (with Brahmins and Devaswoms) were recorded as “Thanathu”.
  • As shown above, when lands were classified under various heads, in Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, 1962 Ker LT 913 :  AIR 1963 Ker 86, ‘Janmam’ lands were denoted as ‘Tanathu’.

Cochin Settlement Proclamation of 1080 (1905)

As shown above, the Sirkar or Pandaravaka tenure holders of the Kingdom of Cochin were conferred with fixity of tenure by the Settlement Proclamation of 1080 (1905).

The Settlement Proclamation of 1905 covered all lands in the State, including lands held under concessional tenures or as tax-free. The Rules made under the Act contained the procedure for the issue of title deeds in respect of lands held under such grants. As stated above, Clause 13 of the Settlement Proclamation provided that the holders of Pandaravaka Verumpattom lands would acquire ‘full rights to the soil of the lands’ they held. Settlement Proclamation of Cochin of 1080 (1905) Clause 13 provided as under:

  • “At present holders of Pandaravaka Verumpattom lands do not possess any property in the soil. As we are convinced that proprietorship in soil will induce a cultivator to improve his land and thereby add to agricultural prosperity of the country, we hereby declare that our Verumpattom holders of lands shall, after the new settlement has been introduced, acquire full rights to the soil of the lands they hold and that their rights shall remain undisturbed so long as they regularly pay the State revenue, provided that the rights to metals and minerals, possessed by the State in all lands under whatever tenures they are held, are reserved to the State”.

The Settlement Proclamation of 1905 was expressly repealed by the Land Tax Act of 1955 of the united State of Travancore-Cochin; but this Act, as a whole, was struck down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 552. In Kesavan Vadhyan Namboodri v. State of Kerala, AIR 1968 Ker 279, it was pointed out that this Proclamation of 1080 (1905) stood repealed by implication by the Land Tax Act of 1961.

Section 4 of the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act, 1118, reads as under:

  • “Notwithstanding any law, custom or contract to the contrary, every verumpattomdar shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding and shall not be evicted therefrom except as provided in Section 8 of this act.”

Section 4 concerned with the fixity of tenure, that is, fixity of the period of holding, possession or enjoyment of the land. The effect of such a mere conferment of fixity of tenure was not to continue the lease beyond the period specified therein, but to give to the person who continues to remain in possession of the land after the lease has come to an end the status of a statutory tenant. (Ittiravi Namboodiri Vs. Krishnankutty Menon AIR 1964 Ker 298. Dr. K. A. Dhairyawan V. J. R. Thakur, AIR 1958 SC 789, referred to.)

Pattom Proclamations and Constitution of India 

Article 31A(2) of the Constitution of India reads thus:

  • “In this article-
  • (a) the expression ‘estate ‘ shall, in relation to any local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area, and shall also include any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant, and in the States of Madras and Kerala any janmam right;
  • (b) the expression ‘rights’, in relation to an estate, shall include any rights vesting in a proprietor, sub-proprietor, under-proprietor tenure-holder, raiyat, under-raiyat or other intermediary and any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue.”

1. Jenmam – Proprietary Right in the Soil

In K. K. Kochunni v. States of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080, the Supreme Court, while dealing with Article 31A of the Constitution, said:

  • “Under the definition, any jenmom right in Kerala is an ‘estate’. A jenmom right is the freehold interest in a property situated in Kerala. Moor in his “Malabar Law and Custom” describes it as a hereditary proprietorship. A jenmom interest may, therefore be described as ‘proprietary interest of a landlord in lands‘.”

In Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 694, the Supreme Court held as under:

  • “It seems to us that the basic concept of the word ‘estate’ is that the person holding the estate should be proprietor of the soil and should be in direct relationship with the State paying land revenue to it except where it is remitted in whole or in part”.

In Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, 1962 Ker LT 913 :  AIR 1963 Ker 86, it was observed that

  • ‘Thanathu,
  • Thettom,
  • Manavaka,
  • Brahmaswom Vaka,
  • Devaswom Vaka,
  • Kudijenmom,
  • Kanom,
  • Kanom Kudijenmom and
  • Venpattom’

“created by Jenmis” must be held to be covered by the word ‘Estate’ in Art. 31A of the Constitution. It held further as under:

  • “20. It cannot be disputed that these Jenmis and Devaswoms had full proprietary right in the soil and that the lands in which they have ‘Jenmom rights’ are ‘Estates’ within the definition of the word in Article 31-A.”
  • “21. … As regards ‘jnam lands’ it was conceded that the holders had full proprietary rights in the soil. These consist of
    • Pandaravaka Adima,
    • Anubhogam,
    • Thiruvulam,
    • Danom,
    • Pandaravaka Kudijenmom,
    • Erayeli,
    • Viruthi and
    • Karam Ozhivu.
  • Inam lands other than Erayeli and Viruthi (Service Inams) were dealt with under S. 24 of the Revenue Settlement Proclamation of 1061 M.E. (1886 AD). Clause 7 of S. 24 provided:
    • “There shall be no further interference on the part of the Government with these free holds, except such as might be necessary for the punctual realization of the quit rent payable”.
  • Note:
    • 1. It was held in Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86 (analysing the 1040 ME (1865), Travancore Proclamation) that the provisions of the Proclamation did not confer on the tenants absolute proprietary rights in the soil.
    • 2. Overruling Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, it was held in Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez, 1971 Ker LT 1; AIR 1971 Ker 168, that Pandarapattom land in the Travancore area of the State was ‘estate’ within the meaning of Article 31-A(2)(a).

Meaning of the Word ‘Thettom’

  • Generally meant – acquisition by Mortgage.
  • When ‘Thettom’ refers to a property dealing with a Jenmam holder, it can be any ‘subordinate tenure falling short of the full proprietary title‘.
  • When it refers to a property dealing with a Non-Jenmom holder, it may mean a sale’

As regards ‘Thettom’, Raman Menon, C.J., said, in Augusti v. The Dewan of Travancore, 8 Travancore LJ 438, as under:

  • “In S.A. 17 of 1074, this Court remarked:-‘In the Sirkar registry of 1011, the plaint property is entered as ‘Thettom’ in the name of defendants’ Tarwad.
  • That expression, according to its ordinary meaning, implies at least a mortgage lien, if not more, as held by this Court in A.S.166 of 1070 and A.S. 285 of 1071. It always implies something more than a simple lease’.
  • In S.A. 61 of 1075, the terms was taken to be generic and to include ‘all subordinate tenures falling short of the full proprietory title‘.
  • In S.A. 302 of 1075, it was observed that the word ‘Thettom’, as applied to Nambudiri Jenmies, had been held by this court to mean ordinarily a Kanom.
  • In S.A. 48 of 1076, Vencoba Chariar, C.J. and Mr. Justice Kunhiraman Nair construed the words thus:- ‘The chief ground of the plaintiff’s second appeal is that in arriving at this finding the lower courts have not given sufficient weight to the fact appearing from the Ext. B – an old Revenue account – in which the land in dispute is entered as ‘Thettam’ from plaintiff’s Illom; but the word ‘Thettom’ is a somewhat ambiguous one and though, as remarked in the case in 15 TLR 161 and in other cases, it is generally used in the Revenue accounts to signify the Kanom tenure under Jenmies, it is also sometimes used to denote other subordinate tenures‘.
  • In S.A. 343 of 1078, we find the following remarks:-‘Thettom ordinarily means a’Kanom’, and in any case, a derivative title when used in connection with Brahmaswam or Devaswom properties, as in the present case’.
  • Lastly, in A.S. Nos. 59 and 101 of 1083, Sadasiva Iyer, C.J., and Sankara Menon, J., observed thus:- ‘Mr. Kochukrishna Marar quotes 15 TLR 161 and says the word ‘Thettom’ means a Kanom or mortgage.
  • No doubt, in the case of Jenmies, it has been so held; but we doubt whether in the case of non jenmies, any meaning other than the ordinary meaning of the word can be given to the word ‘Thettom’. The plaintiffs are Nairs and the tenure claimed is not Jenmom. The ordinary meaning of the word is acquisition. We are inclined to hold that a word ‘Thettom’, in cases of this sort, means only sale’.”
  • (Quoted in: Travancore Devaswom Board v. Uzhithiraru Uzhithiraru, 1957 KLT 315)

In Damodaran v. Sankaranarayanan Namboothiripad, ILR 1963-2 Ker. 707; 1964 KLT 25, the High Court referred to thanathu thettom land (nilam); and observed – it conveys the idea of ‘acquisition’.

‘Janmom’

It was the properties owned by Janmies.  Such lands were exempted from tax.

  • Regulation of 1071 (1896) attracted these properties.  The tax under Rajabhogam had to be paid for this land.   But Devaswom and Brahmaswom thanathu lands, though came under the head ‘Janmam’, and were exempted from tax, only so long as they remained unalienated.  When alienated it was charged under Rajabhogam assessment.  Devaswom and Brehmaswom properties could have been subjected to outright sale.

Status in ‘Janmom’ cannot be Transferred

Theoretically, status in ‘Janmom’ cannot be transferred (it being an inherent right attached to land); though ‘rights in Janmam’ can be transferred.

Landmark Decisions on Pandarapattom lands (Cochin & Travancore)

(In the matter of compensation when acquire land by Govt – under Art. 31A, Constitution)

  • 1. Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 694
  • Proprietary Rights to Pandarapattom Lands in Cochin, in view of 1905 Proclamation.
  • N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. (descending) referred 1040 Travancore Proclamation, and said that there was only withdrawal of the right by the State and no conferment.
  • 2. Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86 (FB)
  • Pandarapattom Confered No Proprietary Rights in Travancore; only treated as holding on perpetual leases. (Overruled in Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez)
  • 3. Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez, AIR 1971 Ker 168 (5 Judge Bench)
  • Proclamation of 1040 (1865 AD), all Sircar-pattom-lands were converted into full proprietary-lands

Pandarapattom lands in Cochin & Travancore – Proprietary Right in the Soil

In Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 694, the Supreme Court held (by majority, P.B. Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar, K.N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta; and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, dissenting) that Pandarappattom properties come within ‘estate’ under Article 31A of the Constitution. The Apex Court considered the proclamation issued by his Highness Sir Rama Varma Raja of Cochin on March 10, 1905. Clause 13 that rendered ‘full rights to the soil of the lands they hold’.

The Supreme Court (majority) held, with respect to Cochin Regulation, 1905 as under:

  • “It would thus be seen that under clause 13 the person holding lands on the Pandaravaka Verumpattom tenure is not a tenant. He is given the proprietary right in the soil itself, subject of course to the rights as to metals and minerals reserved in favour of the State, indeed, the whole scheme of the new Proclamation appears to be to change the character of the possession of the Pandaravaka Verumpattom tenure-holder from that of a tenant into that of a proprietor-holder. It is true that he is made liable to pay half of the net produce and that may appear to be a little too high, but the measure of the levy will not convert what is intended to be a recovery of assessment Into a recovery of rent. The proprietor of the land held on Verumpattom tenure is nevertheless a proprietor of the land and he holds the land subject to his liability to pay the assessment to the State. It is not difficult to imagine that in a fairly large number of lands held by Pandaravaka Verumpattom tenure-holders the holders in turn would let out the the lands to the cultivators and thus would come into existence a local equivalent of the class of intermediaries. Land revenue record is required to be prepared by the Proclamation and relevant entries showing the extent of the properties belonging to the respective holders and the details about their liability to pay the assessment are intended to be shown in the said record. In our opinion, it would not be reasonable to hold that the ‘lands held by the petitioner under the Pandaravaha Verumpattom tenure do not confer on him the proprietary right at all but make him a tenant of the State“.

But, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., while descending, observed as under:

  • “In this connection I might usefully refer to a proclamation of the ruler of Travancore of 1865 (1040 M. E.) regarding Sarkar-pattom lands, with the observation that subject to variations dependent on local usages, the system of land tenure and the concepts as regards the rights of property in land were substantially similar in Travancore and Cochin. Sarkar-pattom lands were what might be termed ‘Crown lands’ of which the ruler was deemed to be the Jenmi or the landlord. Previous to the proclamation the lands were legally capable of being resumed by the ruler, though this was seldom done and the cultivators were not legally entitled to transfer their rights and where this was done the Government had the right to ignore the transaction. The fact that the cultivator was conceived of as having no proprietary interest on the land also bore adversely on the State since the State was deprived of the means of realising any arrears of revenue by bringing the holding to sale. It was to remedy this situation that the proclamation was issued and the preamble and its terms carry the impress of the impact of the ryotwari system of Madras.”

After referring the 1040 (1865) Proclamation, Ayyangar, J. said as under:

  • “The language employed in the proclamation is of significance. It speaks of the relinquishment or withdrawal of the right of the State and not of the conferment of a right on the ryot so as to render the ryot a grantee from the State, just in line with the Hindu Law theory of the proprietorship of the soil vesting in the occupant-cultivator.”

In Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86 (FB), in spite of the decision in Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 694 (pertained to Cochin), it was held that Pandarapattom (Pandaravaka pattom, Pandaravakappattom, or Pandarappattom) lands in the Travancore area cannot have the protection of Article 31A of the Constitution. Analysing the 1040 ME Travancore Proclamation, it was held by the High Court as under:

  • “11. The provisions of the Proclamation do not, in our opinion, confer on the tenants absolute proprietary rights in the soil. There is no clause by which the Sirkar parted with all rights in favour of the tenants and in the absence of such a provision, the holders of such lands can only be treated as holding such lands on perpetual leases.”

Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez case – Pandarapattom Confers Proprietary Rights

Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86, was overruled by the larger Bench in Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez, 1971 Ker LT 1, AIR 1971 Ker 168, and it was held that Pandarapattom land in the Travancore area of the State was ‘estate’ within the meaning of Article 31-A(2)(a). (See: Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, 2018-2 KHC 719; 2018-2 KLT 369).

It was found in Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez case that by the Proclamation of 1040 (1865 AD), all Sircar-pattom-lands were converted into full proprietary-lands, and rights on tenants of Pandarapattom lands had thenceforth been conferred with proprietary-rights.

In Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez, 1971 Ker LT 1, AIR 1971 Ker 168, it was observed as under:

Per PT Raman Nayar, CJ, T Krishnamoorthy Iyer, P Unnikrishna Kurup, JJ.:

  • “11. …. We have already shown how, in the face of the Proclamation of 1040, it is impossible to regard the holders of these lands as tenants in the strict sense of that term having only the right to enjoy the land and no interest in the land as such. We have also drawn attention to the fact that what they pay to the Government is, under the very terms of the Proclamation, assessment or land tax, in other words, land revenue, and not rent properly so-called. As stated in 1962 Ker LT 913 = (AIR 1963 Ker 86 FB). with reference to contemporary documents, the avowed purpose of the Proclamation of 1040 was to place pandarapattam lands on the same footing as ryotwari lands in the neighbouring province of Madras, and wo have no doubt that it succeeded in doing so. If the relations between the holder of a land and the Government are placed on the same footing as the relations between the holder of ryotwari land and the Government, it seems to us that it necessarily follows that the land is held under ryotwari settlement–it is the factual relationship and not the label that counts and no concept of legal rights is involved. ….

Per KK Mathew, J.

  • 17……. To my mind the terms of the Proclamation leave no doubt that full proprietary interest has been conferred upon the holders of pandarapattom lands. ….Clause (2) is the pivotal clause; and it provides that the ryots holding such lands may regard them fully private, saleable and otherwise heritable and transferable property. Clause (4) guarantees the continued undisturbed enjoyment of the land so long as the appointed assessment is paid. Clause (6) makes it clear that the lands will be resumable by the State like other jenmom or private land only for public purpose and when resumed for such purposes compensation will be paid by the Sirkar not only for the improvements but also for the full market value of the property. Clause (7) provided that the rights conferred by the Proclamation would not in any way affect the right of the Sirkar to regulate land tax or to resume escheats or to confiscate the property of criminals. Clauses (6) and (7) are very significant. What are reserved to the Sirkar by Clauses (6) and (7) are not anv proprietary rights in the land. The rights which inhere in every sovereign in respect of every property within his jurisdiction like eminent domain, the right to impose or regulate tax, to resume escheats, to confiscate property of criminals, are alone reserved by those clauses. They not only do not derogate from the grant of full proprietary interest made by Clauses (1), (2) and (4), but would highlight that no proprietary rights have been reserved to the State. If the sovereign was careful to reserve to himself in respect of these lands only those rights which appertain to sovereignty and not any right which relates to dominium, that is a clear indication that no right relating to dominium was intended to be retained by the Sirkar. Even if the clauses were absent, the Sirkar would have those rights as they appertain to sovereignty and not to dominium. In other words, if by way of abundant caution the clauses reserved to the Sirkar only rights which appertain to sovereignty, there was absolutely no reason why the rights, if any, relating to dominium or ownership were not reserved, if the sovereign intended to retain any right in respect of the lands.….. I think, a holder of pandarapattom land satisfies even the orthodox definition of ownership by Austin.   Austin defines the right of ownership as a–“right indefinite in point of user, unrestricted in point of disposition, and unlimited in point of duration, over a determinate thing.” (See ‘Jurisprudence’ by Austin, 3rd Edn., page 817.) 
  • 19. The basic concept of ‘estate’ is that the person holding the estate should be the proprietor of the soil and should be in direct relationship with the State by paying land revenue to it except where it is remitted in whole or in part. See AIR 1962 SC 694. As I have said the pattom Proclamation conferred full proprietary rights on tenants of pandarapattom lands, and they are also in direct relation with the State by paying land revenue. Since there is no definition of the word ‘estate’ in the existing local law relating to land tenure, pandarapattom land is the local equivalent of ‘estate,’ because its attributes conform to the basic concept of the term.”

Note: Another decision (with the same parties), Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez, 1971 KLT 216, AIR 1973 Ker 55,  was overruled in Velayudhan Vivekanandan v. Ayyappan  Sadasivan, ILR 1975-1 Ker 166; 1975  KerLT 1.

Effect of Travancore Govt. Leases AFTER Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 and 1061

Now a question arises:

What is the impact of 1040 and 1061 (1886) Proclamations over the ‘Government Land Leases’ (Pandaravakappattoms) made after 1061 (1886)? Do such leased lands qualify as “estate” under Article 31A of the Constitution?

  • The legitimate answer is that the lands leased out (by the Government) after 1061 (1886) do not acquire the rights of ‘permanency of tenure’ or attain the ‘proprietary interest’ conferred by the Pattom Proclamations of 1040 and 1061.
  • If such rights of permanency and ‘proprietary interest’ are axiomatically conferred as a matter of course, the result would be that the Government cannot ‘lease’ lands (after the Proclamations), for, the lease character would be lost at the moment it is made.

n George A Leslie v. State of Kerala, 1969 KLT 378, it was observed as under:

  • ” 9. Ext. P 1 is a grant made under the Travancore Regulation II of 1040 and the Rules for the sale of Waste Land on the Travancore Hills dated 24th April 1865. …
  • 12. Reference was made by counsel for the petitioners to the Travancore Pattom Proclamation of 1040, which conferred full rights in the land on tenants of pandarapattom land, and the subsequent proclamations and notifications by which they acquired the full title to the trees in the land. They have no application to the land or trees comprised in Ext. P 1 grant.”

Therefore, there is a clear difference between leases made before and after the Proclamations; and the rights conferred by the Proclamations do not apply to leases made after the Proclamations.

The nature of Pandaravaka lands is explained in the Travancore Land Revenue Manual (Revised Edition), Volume Ill, Part I, page 6 as under:

  • “The proclamation of 1040 converted them into permanent leases and conferred on the holders thereof permanent rights of occupancy, heritable and alienable.” (Quoted in: Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86.)

There is no scope for arguing that the future “Pandarappattoms” (future tenancy by Government) was ‘made void’ by the proclamation; or in other words, that the 1040 Proclamation “binds” the future Government tenancies also.

1865 Travancore Proclamation and 1905 Cochin Proclamation

In Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 694, the Supreme Court (Rajagopala Ayyankar, J. Minority) pointed out the requirement and purport of these Proclamations. It reads as under:

  • “The evils which the system gave rise to, the economic insecurity of the tenant and the consequent lack of incentive on his part to put his best exertion on the land and the resultant loss to the state in the shape of revenue as well as the rise of a contented peasantry were exactly parallel to the situation which faced the ruler of Travancore leading to the proclamation of 1865. It was in these circumstances that the ruler of Cochin issued a proclamation on March 10, 1905, which defined with precision the rights of the State and of the cultivator in regard to these lands …”

Ayyankar, J. (Minority) observed that there was “conferment of proprietary rights by the Cochin Proclamation of 1905″ and “relinquishment by the State under the Travancore Proclamation of 1865″.

Finally, the Majority held that by virtue of the Cochin Proclamation of 1905 the holders of the Pandaravaka-verumpattom lands in Cochin were holding the property as “estate” within the meaning of Article 31A of the Constitution, and that the challenge thereon (to the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1961) was not sustainable.

Devaswom Proclamation, 1922 & 1948 and Formation of Dev. Board

The History of Governmental Administration of Devaswoms mark four phases. They are:

  • (i) Administration as the Land Revenue Department – started in 987 ME (1811-1812 AD) under the edicts of Col. Munro.
  • (ii) Administration as the Devaswom Department – from 1922 Devaswom Proclamation.
  • (iii) Direct Administration by Maharaja by the 1948 Proclamation assuming control of Devaswoms and Devaswom Department.
  • (iv) Administration under Devaswom Board – from 1950 in accordance with the enactment, Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.

Administration ‘AS’ the Governemnt Departments

By virtue of ‘organising’ the Devaswoms “as” the Land Revenue Department (from 987 ME) and “as” the Devaswom Department (by Proclamation, 1922), Devaswoms mentioned in the schedule thereof were treated as the ‘property of the State’.

The history as to the formulation of the Devaswom Proclamation, 1922, is given in  M. Muraleedharan Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR1991 Ker 25. It was laid down:

  • The Hindu temples in the State of Travancore were mostly under private management called Ooralars or Karakars.
  • When those bodies were found mismanaging the institutions, Col. Munro decided in 987 ME (1811-1812 AD) that the State should assume control over them.
  • With a view to secure better management of the Devaswoms, the Government appointed a committee to report upon the assumptions of those Devaswoms, the feasibility of separating their administration from the Land Revenue Department and cost if a separate department be deemed desirable.
  • The Commitlee, recommended that the administration of the Devaswom should be separated from the Land Revenue Department and entrusted to a distinct agency.
  • The Government of Travancore after taking necessary legal opinion came to the conclusion that creation of a separate department exclusively to the administration of Devaswoms was necessary.
  • Considering that it is the solemn right and duty of the Government to maintain efficiently and in good condition the Hindu Religious Institutions the State the Travancore Government issued the Devaswom Proclamation on 12th April, 1922 corresponding to 30th Meenom, 1097.
  • Section 7 of the Proclamation is as under:
    • “7.(1) Our Government may for the better and more efficient management and more effective control of the Devaswoms mentioned in the schedule organised a Devaswom Department of the State consisting of such number of officers and other servants as they think fit.
    • (2) The expenditure in connection with the said Department shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, be not out of the general revenue of the State.”
  • Formation of the (independent) Devaswom Department, bifurcating it from Revenue Department) did not make any substantial change in the character of the Government-ownership/control over the temple and its properties.

Administration ‘UNDER’ the Travancore Devaswom Board

The history shows that a “material change” was brought forth by the formulation of the Travancore Devaswom Board. It is laid down in  M. Muraleedharan Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1991 Ker 25, as under:

  • The Maharaja did not want to leave the administration of the Devaswoms to the State Government in the new set up. Therefore on 10-8-1123 (23-3-1948), yet another proclamation was issued by which the Maharaja assumed control of Devaswoms and Devaswom Department of the Government.
  • A material change also made in respect of funds from which expenditure. It was also provided that expenditure to be made not from general revenue but only from Devuswom fund.
  • Thereafter when Travancore-Cochin States were integrated it was provided by Section 8(c) of the Covenant that the administration of the Devaswoms, Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments and their properties and funds would vest with effect from 1-8-1949 in a Board known as Travancore Devaswom Board.
  • The Hindu Religious Institutions Ordinance 10 of 1124 was promulgated which came into force on 1-8-1949. Before expiry of the period of Ordinance, Act 15 of 1950, namely the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 was enacted.
  • Section 3 of the Act provided (as regards the formation of the Travancore Devaswom Board) as under:
    • “The administration of Incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds as well as the fund constituted under the Devaswom Proclamation, 1097 M. E. and the Surplus Fund Constituted under the Devaswom (Amendment) Proclamation, 1122 M. E. which were under the management of the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July 1949, except the Sree Padrnanabhaswamy Temple, Sree Pandaravaga properties and all other properties and funds of the said temple, and the management of all institutions which were under the Devaswom Department shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board.”
  • The power of nomination given to the Ruler of Travancore was taken away and was given to the Council of Ministers by Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Act 70 of 1974. Thereafter, of the three Hindu members of the Board, two will have to be nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Minister. The power given to Rajpramukh was subsequently vested in the Governor.

Read Connected Blogs:

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment