Ten Square Miles Concession and Kanan Devan Hills Concession – State Grants of Travancore Governments

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Introduction

It is held in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v.  The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301 (relying on  the Travancore Land Revenue Manual) as under:

• “It thus appears that the State grants like
• Kanan Devan Hills Concession and
• Ten Square Miles Concession, and
• Munro Lands,
• were treated under the heading Pandaravaka Lands; i.e. lands belonging to the sircar.”

Kanan Devan Hills Concession: Poonjar Raja was Original Janmi

Poonjar Raja was a Janmi (landlord or proprietary interest holder) of the lands involved in Kanan Devan Hills Concession.  John Danial Munro obtained large extent of land, on rental basis, for coffee cultivation,  from Punjar Valiya Raja, on July 11, 1877, under the first Pooniat Concession. It was stipulated in the Concession that –

• “you shall clear and remove the jungles, and reclaim the waste lands within the said boundaries, and cultivate them with coffee up to the year 1058 and from the year 1059, pay our rent collector a yearly rent at the rate of 3,000 British Rupees” (Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301, 1972-2 SCC 218).

The Maharaja of Travancore executed a deed of ratification, dated November 28, 1878, by which the he ratified the First Pooniat Concession dated July 11, 1877. The lands of Poonjar Raja over which he exercised the right as a Janmi had been transferred to the Government of Travancore.  

On 2.8.1886, the agreement called the Second Pooniat Concession was entered into modifying the previous deed. By this time a company called the North Travancore Land Planting and Agricultural Society Ltd. had acquired the rights in the said land.

Surrender of rights to Travancore Sircar 

Poonjar Chief or Raja had subjugated himself to Travancore Sircar or Maharaja. Agreement dated 18.09.1899 was entered into between Rohini Thirunal Kerala Varma Raja (the then Chief of Poonjar Koyikkal) and the Travancore Government, under which the ownership of the lands including that described in the Poonjat Concessions had been transferred to the Government of Travancore. (See: Kottayam District Koottu Krishi Karshakasangam v. Stateof Kerala, 2015).

It was declared that the tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills was an integral portion of our territory of the Travancore and the inhabitants were not to make any payment to the Poonjar Chief.

Royal Proclamation of 1899

On 24.9.1899, a Royal Proclamation (of 1899) was made.

The Royal Proclamation made on 24.9.1899 read as under:

• “Whereas we deem it expedient to clearly declare the position of this State in respect of the tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills, we are pleased to declare as follows; (1) The tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills is an integral portion of our territory and all rights over it belong to and vest in us.
• (2) The inhabitants of the said tract and all others whom it may concern are hereby informed and warned that they are not to pay any taxes, rents or dues, or make any other payment to the Poonjar Chief or his representatives or to any person other than an officer of our Government authorised in this behalf, in respect of anything in, upon or connected with the said tract, with the exception, however, of a payment of rupee three thousand per annum from the successors in interests of the late Mr. J.D. Munro of London and Peermade now being paid to the said Chief in virtue of a Lease deed executed by the said Chief in favour of the said late Mr.J.D. Munro on the 11th July, 1877, and which we are pleased to permit the said Chief to continue to receive.
• (3) The lands within the said tract will be dealt with by our Government in the same manner as lands in other parts of our  territory with such modifications as the circumstances and conditions of the said tract may require and all taxes, rents and dues hitherto paid, and that may hereafter be imposed by our Government shall, with the exception of the sum of rupees three thousand aforesaid, be paid by the, occupants of lands within the said tract whose occupation has been or may be recognized or confirmed by our Government, and of such portions of the said tract as may from time to time hereafter, with the permission of our Government, be occupied, to the officers of our Government who may be authorised in this behalf.” (Quoted in: Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301, 1972-2 SCC 218; Kottayam District Koottu Krishi Karshakasangam v. Stateof Kerala, 2015)

Ten Square Miles Concession

The Travancore States Manuel, Volume IV, Page 487-490, reads as under:

• “PATHANAPURAM CONCESSION.
• A tract of land in Pathanapuram and Shencotta comprising an area of ten square miles was originally taken up and cultivated by one Mr. Huxam under permission granted by the Sirkar in 1834 (1009 ME) [Vide Land Revenue Manual — Vol. Ill- Revised Edition Part I, pp. 9-11]
• An agreement was entered into between the Dewan of Travancore and Mr. William Huxam on 9th July 1849 (27th Mithunam 1024).
• In 1852 Mr. Huxam transferred the land to the firm of Messrs. Binny and Co., Madras, with the sanction of the Sirkar.
• An agreement was entered into between the Sirkar and Messrs. Binny & Co., in 1852 (1027 M.E.) whereby the Sirkar granted the Company a lease of the land for 30 years with a condition that the lease shall be renewable at the option of the then holder for the period of 30 years on the same terms and conditions, and again for a further period of 30 years at the option of the holders, thus extending the term to 90 years. A condition was also inserted in the agreement that, if the lease were not renewed at the expiration  of either the first or the second term, the whole of the land with all the trees and plants thereon shall revert to the possession of the Sircar. Messers Binni and Co. transferred the land to Mr. GM McLauchlan in 1876 with the permission of the Sirkar. Subsequently, Mr. McLauchlan with two partners (Mr. P. W. Keir and Mr. George Anderson) forming the ‘Travancore Plantation Company’ applied for and obtained a renewal of the lease Company. This agreement was executed on 17th April 1877 (6th Madam 1052). This deed granted a lease of the land to the Company for 35 years from 13th January 1877, with a condition that the lease shall be renewable for a further period of 30 years upon the same terms and conditions viz., an annual rent of Rs. 100 for every English square mile of land cultivated, exemption from payment of rent for 3 years from the date of clearing and obligation to obtain the sanction of the Government for any alienation of the land or the rights thereof. It was also stipulated that, at the expiration of the period of sixty-five years provided for in the agreement, or if the lease were not renewed at the expiration of the first term, the whole of the land with all the trees and plants thereon shall revert to the possession of the Sirkar, In 1905, Messrs. Keir and McLauchlan requested the Government either to give them the assurance that the lease would be renewed on the expiry of the existing term or convert the lease-hold into free-hold at the expiry of the lease, for which they were prepared to pay 3 annas instead of 2 1/2 annas per acre for the land brought under cultivation. They made these proposals as they wanted to open the lands remaining uncultivated for rubber. The matter was discussed between the Dewan and the applicants and others who had acquired portions of the land from the lessees, and as the result of these discussions, the Government issued G. 0. No. 5020 R. 1994, dated 28th March 1906, in which it was stated that Government .were prepared to convert (the lease-hold into freehold on the following conditions:
  • .(i) Payment of acreage value of Re. 1 per acre on the 10 sq. miles.
  • (ii) Assessment for lands under coffee, tea and other products, at the rates which may prevail at the time.
  • (iii) Assessment for lands which may not have been cleared and which may remain as jungle at 8 as. per acre.
  • (iv) Assessment for lands brought under rubber cultivation at Rs. 2 per acre.
• It was also laid down in the G.O. that all transfers should be reported to Government and that the other terms of the grant shall be the same as those that apply to waste lands granted under the coffee land rules, dated 7th July 1898. When the tax on lands granted for coffee and tea cultivation was raised from 12 annas to one British rupee per acre, with effect from 17th August 1910, by Royal Proclamation dated 12-8-09, that fact was communicated to the holders of this grant, with the intimation that when the lease-hold was converted into freehold under the above G.O the grantees and their alienees should pay assessment at the increased rate of Bh, Re. 1 per acre on the whole area cultivated, from 12th January 1912.
• The area covered by this special grant consists of the following 10 estates situated in the taluks of Paithanapuram and Shenkotta:
• Name: …………………………Area: …………….Taluk
• Venture …. ………………….407.25 acres: Shencotta
• A and (B) Block:…. ………….711.01 acres: Shencotta
• Ridgeband: …………………127.80 acres: Shencotta
• New Swarnagiri:….. ………208.87 acres: Shencotta
• Upper Florence II Bit: …39.29 acres: Shencotta
• Koravanthavalam: ……..1230.20 acres: Pathanapuram
• Midlothian: …………………437.24 acres: Pathanapuram
• Nagamala: ………………..1376.53: acres: Pathanapuram
• Isfield: …………………… 567.78 acres: Pathanapuram
• New Arundal: …………1310.13 acres: Pathanapuram

Terms of the Grant Under the Coffee Land Rules, 7th July 1898

The effect of the “terms of the grant” dated 7th July 1898, referred to in the Ten Mile Concession is explained in  M. A. Majeed v. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, 2005-3 KLJ 762; 2006-1 KLT 19. It is observed as under:

• “14. Apart from this, the Special Government Pleader has pointed out to us the departmental rules regarding the sale of waste land subject to which grant has been made as per Ext. R2(a), which categorically makes it clear that: “The other terms of the grant shall be the same as those that apply to waste lands granted under the coffee land dated 7th july 1898.”
• The rules for the sale of wasteland on the Travancore Hills for coffee or tea cultivation provides for reservation of trees to attract Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act. She further submits that, the grant in terms of Ext. R2(a) is not absolute. Notwithstanding the terms of the lease, the government can, as per Section 4, demand seigniorage from the grantee.”

1910 Proclamation

By  His  Highness  the  Maha  Raja  of  Travancore  issued under date  the  3rd  OCTOBER  1910/17tH  Kanni  1086.

• “Whereas  the  tax  on  all  lands,  granted  for  coffee  or  tea cultivation,  under  the  terms  of  the  Memorandum  dated  the  8th day  of  March  1862,  or  under  the  Rules  passed  oil  the  24th  day of  April  1865,  or  under  the  Rules  passed  on  the  7th  day  of  July 1898,  is  now  payable  at  (12)  twelve annas    per  acre  per  annum, and  whereas  the  tax  on  all  grass  lands,  granted  for  homestead  and farmstead  to  the  proprietors  of  Coffee  or  Tea  Estates,  under  the Rules  passed  on  the  31st  day  of  July  1877,  is  now  payable  at (4)  four  annas  per  acre  per  annum,  and  whereas  the  question  of revising  the  assessment  of  all  the  lands  granted  under  the  aforesaid Memorandum  and  Rules  has  been  considered  in  connection  with the  General  Revenue  Settlement  of  the  State,  now  drawing  to  a close,  We,  in  exercise  of  the  power  reserved  in  the  Proviso  to”  Para 1  of  the  aforesaid  Memorandum  and  in  Clause  1  of  the  title-deeds issued  thereunder  or  under  the  aforesaid  Rules,  are  pleased  to  command  that,  from  the  17th  day  of  August  1910,  corresponding  to the  1st  day  of  Chingam  1086,  the  annual  land  tax  payable  on  all lands  granted  under  the  aforesaid  Memorandum  dated  the  8th  day of  March  1862  or  the  Rules  dated  the  24th  day  of  April  1865  or  the 7th  day  of  July  1898,  be  raised  from  (12)  twelve  annas  to  British Rupee  (1)  one  per  acre,  and  the  annual  land  tax  on  all  grass  lands granted  for  homestead  and  farmstead  under  the  aforesaid  Rules dated  31st  day  of  July  1X77,  be  raised  from  (4).  four  annas  to  (5) five  annas  per  acre  and  that  these  taxes  of  British  Rupee  ( 1)  one per  acre  and  annas  (5)  five  per  acre  per  annum  respectively  shall remain  unaltered  till  the  next  General  Revenue  Settlement  of  the State  is  taken  up.”

Key Decisions on Grant

In the following cases the effect of “grant” by the Erstwhile Governments was considered.

1. Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v.  The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301

The Supreme Court, in Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301 (Sikri (Cj), Shelat, A.N. Ray, I.D. Dua, , H.R.  Khanna, JJ.) held that Kenan Devan Hills Concession (on grant deeds) fall within the expression “Janmam right” vested with Sircar. The State of Kerala made an Act – the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971, to “vest” the possession of the land remained in the possession of the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd.

According to the petitioner Company, ‘it has at all times been holding, cultivating, enjoying and dealing with the Concession Land as the absolute, owner thereof’.

According to the State, this land is dealt with under this heading – Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar. and that it was only “granted” to the company for ‘coffee cultivation’. The State asserted in this case –

• that the petitioner Company was not an absolute owner, but only a lessee under the Government, especially since the 1899 Proclamation issued by H.H. the Maharaja declaring that Kannan Devan Hills was ‘an integral part’ of the ‘territory’.
• that the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title was John Danial Munro, who obtained, the first Pooniat Concession from Punjar Valiya Raja, on July 11, 1877. This Concession recited that an, application was made for the grant of the above property to the Raja for coffee cultivation.
• It was further stipulated in the Concession that
  •  “you shall clear and remove the jungles, and reclaim the waste lands within the said boundaries, and cultivate them with coffee up to the year 1058 and from the year 1059, pay our rent collector a yearly rent at the rate of 3,000 British Rupees.”
• H.H. the Maharaja executed a deed of ratification, dated November 28, 1878, by which the Government ratified the First Pooniat Concession dated July 11, 1877.
• This deed of ratification laid down –  the Government permitted the grantee to hold the land. (it is similar to the ‘Grant/Title’ deeds executed by the State in all other ‘Grants’ – under the ‘Grant Rules’).
• Clause 5 of the Deed of Ratification, is important. It provides, inter alia, that
  • “The grantee can appropriate to his own use within the limits of the grant all timber except the following and such as may hereafter be reserved namely, Teak, Cole Teak, Blackwood, Ebony, Karoonthaly, Sandalwood; should he carry any timber without the limits of the grant it will be subject to the payment of Kooteekanom, or Customs Duty……….
• The eleventh clause reads – “The land granted shall be held in perpetuity as heritable or transferable property, but every case of transfer of the grant by the grantee shall be immediately made known to the Sircar, who shall have the right of apportioning the tax, if a portion of the holding is transferred.”
• The twelfth clause stipulates – “The discovery of useful mines and treasures within the limits of the grant shall be communicated to the Sircar, and the grantee shall in respect to such mines and treasures, abide by the decision of the Sircar.”
• The sixteenth clause provides – “The grantee shall be bound to preserve the forest trees growing on the banks of the principal streams running through the tract to the extent of fifty yards in breadth on each side of the stream, the Underwood only being permitted to be cleared and coffee planted instead. Similarly he shall also be bound to preserve the, trees about the crest of the hill to the extent of a quarter of a mile on each side.”
• A Royal Proclamation was made on September 24, 1899 provided that ‘Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills is an integral portion of our territory and that the inhabitants of the said tract are ‘hereby informed and warned that they are not to pay any taxes, rents or dues, or make any other payment to the Poonjar Chief.

Points came for consideration in this decision were the following:

• Whether the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 was protected from challenge under Art. 31A of the Constitution. That is, whether these lands fall within expression ‘Janmam right’ or “estate”  in art. 31A of the Constitution.
• If the lands acquired were an “estate”, or with ‘Janmam right’ owned by the Company, the land reform enactment did not have stood valid. (Note: Kesavananda Bharathi Case came in 1973.)

The Apex Court found the following:

• The janmam rights (even if remained with the Poonjar Chief, H.H. the Maharaja became the janmi by the Royal proclamation of 1899.
• The nature of ‘janmam right’ has been examined by this Court previously in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887 Subba Rao, J., observed that janmam right in Kerala is an “estate and it is the freehold interest.
• The Sircar itself is one of these janmis and it was the largest Janmi. It came to possess janmam lands by gift, purchase, escheat, confiscation and other ways
• If any person wants land in Travancore, he must obtain it from, some one of the body of Janmis, i.e. from the Sircar, which is the Chief Janmi, or from some other Janmi.

The Apex Court observed as under:

• “… On the material placed before us it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the lands in dispute fall within the expression “Janmam right”.
• If, as stated in Travancore Land Revenue Manual Volume IV, there are no lands that do not belong to a Janmi and the Sircar becomes a janmi by gift, escheat confiscation or otherwise, the effect of the Royal Proclamation of 1899 must be that the Sircar became the Janmi.”

The Apex Court further found –

• The Registered Lands included inter alia, (a) Pandaravaka lands and (b) Janmam lands.
• Regarding Pandaravaka lands it is stated : “Pandaravaka or Sircar lands are, lands of which the State is the landlord or the Jenmi and whatever rights which vest in the ryots are derived from the Sircar.”
• Kenan Devan Hills Concession is dealt with under this heading, i.e. Pandaravaka Lands.
• “It thus appears that the State grants like Kanan Devan Hills Concession and Ten Square Miles Concession, and Munro Lands, were treated under the heading ‘Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar” (that is, such Grant-lands were not ‘owned’ by the holders thereof).

On these findings The Apex Court upheld the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 and dismissed the challenge of the Company.

2. State of Kerala v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 272

With respect to the same property  it was held in State of Kerala v. Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 272, as under:

• “The Trial Court in a detailed and well-reasoned judgment dismissed the suit of the company. The Trial Court on the interpretation of First Concession (Exhibit P- 1), Second Concession (Exhibit P-2), deed of ratification (Exhibit P-62) and the Government agreement with the Society dated August 2, 1866 (Exhibit P-64) came to the conclusion that the company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession Area or the trees and timber in the said area. It was held that the Poonjar Chief had only conveyed heritable and transferable possessory rights over the Concession area to the grantee. It was also held that absolute rights over the trees and timber in the Concession Area did not pass to the grantee and it had only the right to use and remove timber subject to the restrictions imposed in the deeds of conveyance/ratification.”

It is observed:

• “An identical clause in another grant entered into by the Travancore Government came for consideration before a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in George A Leslie v. State of Kerala, 1969 K. L.T. 378, K. K. Mathew, J. (as the learned Judge then was) interpreted the clause as under:
  • “ We think that if title to the reserved trees passed to the grantees, a provision of this nature would have been quite unnecessary. There was no purpose in stating that the grantees will be free to appropriate the reserved trees for consumption within the limits of the grant, if title to the trees passed to the grantees; the provision is a clear indication that the grantees were allowed to cut and appropriate the reserved trees for consumption within the limits of the grant as a matter of concession.”
• “We agree with the interpretation given to the clause by Mathew, J. and hold that the respondent- company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession Area or the trees and the timber therein.”

It is observed further:

• “It was further held by Mathew, J. (in George A. Leslie v. State of Kerala, 1969 KLT 378) that kuttikanam being the governments share of the value of the trees owned by the government it has the power to fix the value of the trees. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions reached by Mathew, J.”

The Apex Court upheld and approved “the judgment and findings” of the Trial Court.

3. George A. Leslie v. State of Kerala – AIR 1970 Ker 21, (K. K. Mathew, J.)

Travancore Regulation II of 1040 (1865) and Rules for the sale of Waste Land on the Travancore Hills dated 24th April 1865 considered.

It is observed:

• “Ext. P-l 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. It conferred a heritable and transferable interest in the grantees of the land comprised in it. Clause 5 in Ext. P-l, which is identical with Section 5 in Form A of the Rules for the sale of Waste Land on the Travancore Hills, is the relevant provision for deciding this question. It provides:
  • “Grantees can appropriate to their own use within the limits of the grant all timber except the following and such as may hereinafter be reserved, namely, Teak, Gole Teak, Blackwood, Ebony, Karcomthaly, Sandalwood; should they carry any timber without the limits of the grant, it will be subject to the payment of kuttikanom or customs duty or both, as the case may be, in the same way as timber ordinarily felled”.
• 10. We think that if title to the reserved trees passed to the grantees, a provision of this nature would have been quite unnecessary. There was no purpose in stating that the grantees will be free to appropriate the reserved trees for consumption within the limits of the grant, if title to the trees passed to the grantees; the provision is a clear indication that the grantees were allowed to cut and appropriate the reserved trees for consumption within the limits of the grant as a matter of concession.”

It was pointed out –

• Travancore Pattom Proclamation of 1040 (1865), which conferred full rights on tenants of pandarapattom land. They have no application to the land or trees comprised in grants for cultivation of coffee or tea (under Rules for the sale of Waste Land on the Travancore Hills dated 24th April 1865).