Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.25 seconds)Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 1972
[16] Para 11 of Balmadies (supra) …….. It would appear from the above
that the effect of the resettlement of 1926 was to retain the janmam
estates and not to abolish the same or to convert them into ryotwari
estates. There was merely a change of nomenclature. Government janman
lands were called the new holdings, while private janmam lands were called
the old holdings. In respect of janmabhogam (janmi’s share) relating to
Government janman lands, the order further directed that the amount to be
paid to the Government should include both the taram assessment and
janmabhogam. It is difficult, in our opinion, to infer from the above
that janmam rights in the lands in question were extinguished and converted
into ryotwari estates. The use of the word Janmabhogam on the contrary
indicates that the rights of janmis were kept intact.
[17] It was an appeal decided by a Division Bench of the Madras High
Court (Sir Charles A. Turner, Kt., Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Muttusami
Ayyar). The appeal arose out of a suit filed by the State seeking
declaration that certain lands (forest lands) which were the subject matter
of dispute in the said suit were the property of the government and a
consequential injunction restraining the defendants from in any way
interfering with the rights of the Government. The defendants asserted
their proprietary rights over the lands in dispute.
[18] Para 11. …. It would appear from the above that the effect of the
resettlement of 1926 was to retain the janmam estates and not to abolish
the same or to convert them into ryotwari estates. There was merely a
change of nomenclature. Government janmam lands were called the new
holdings, while private janmam lands were called the old holdings. In
respect of janmabhogam (janmi’s share) relating to Government janman lands,
the order further directed that the account to be paid to the Government
should include both the term assessment and janmabhogam. It is difficult,
in our opinion, to infer from the above that janmam rights in the lands in
question were extinguished and converted into ryotwari estates. The use
of the word ‘Janmabhogam’ on the contrary indicates that the rights of
janmis were kept intact.
Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
Section 4 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Sukapuram Sabhayogam vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 5 November, 1962
“Even though there is some force in the contention of the
petitioners, the above observations of the Supreme Court are not
inconformity with the observations made by the Full Bench (which
followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunhikoman’s
case), that does not mean that the view taken by the Full Bench
is not correct, because it can be seen from paragraph 14 of the
above judgment itself that the Supreme Court has observed that
in the Kerala case documents were produced and on the basis of
the documents, the Court took the view that the nature of rights
has changed after the Ryotwari settlements.”
Section 5 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Sashi Bhushan Misra vs Raja Jyoti Prashad Singh Deo on 8 December, 1916
48. The next case relied upon by the Kerala High Court is Sashi Bhushan
Misra v. Jyoti Prasad Singh Deo, AIR 1916 PC 191. This decision once again
dealt with the rights of an inamdar particularly an inam which was not part
of the Old Madras Province. Therefore, the decision is wholly irrelevant
in deciding the rights of a ryotwari pattadar especially in the Old Madras
Province.