Travancore Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 (1865 AD) and 1061 (1886 AD), And 1922 Devaswom Proclamation

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Connected Blogs:

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.

Royal Pattom Proclamation of 1040 (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.

Travancore Proclamation of 1040 (1865) conferred ‘Permanency‘

The Proclamation of 1040 (1865), assured the peasants to enjoy the Sircar-land “undisturbed”, so long as they paid the assessment (pattom). Though the Proclamation of 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.

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.)

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

Legally speaking, 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; inasmuch as, till 1040 ME (1865 AD), the agriculturists, who held the Pandaravaka (Government) 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.

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”.
  • 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 ‘Thanathu’.

Meaning of the Word ‘Thettom’

  • Generally meant – acquisition by Mortgage.
  • When ‘Thettom’ refers to a property dealing with a Jenmam (Janmam) 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’.

Effect of Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 and 1061

Royal Proclamations of 1040 and 1061 bound only Travancore Govt. Leases or ‘Pandarappattoms’.

In Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez (five Judge Bench), 1971 Ker LT 1, AIR 1971 Ker 168 (Per PT Raman Nayar, CJ, T Krishnamoorthy Iyer, P Unnikrishna Kurup, JJ.), concluded that the land covered by the Royal Proclamations of 1040 and 1061 were “estates” falling under Art. 31A of the Constitution.

It was on the definite finding that –

  • the Proclamation “secured permanency of tenure” (to the tenants),
  • conferred (on the tenants) “proprietary interest” in the soil; and
  • the Government did not remain as the full and absolute proprietor

The Court said as under:

  • “7. It is impossible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff in this case that, even after the Proclamation of 1040, the holders of these lands had no proprietary interest whatsoever in the soil and remained tenants in the strict sense of that term, with only the right of enjoyment, the only difference being that they secured permanency of tenure, the Government still remaining the full and absolute proprietor of the soil.”

Effect of the Proclamations over ‘Government Land Leases’ AFTER 1061 (1886)?

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.

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 them.

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.
  • As 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.”
  • The Devaswom Department has become a part of the Government Department.

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.

Connected Articles

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