Pattabhirama Ayyar vs K.S. Muniswami Mudaliar

Ramaswami, J.—This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in A.S. No. 3 of 1955

modifying the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Kulitalai in O.S. No. 483 of 1952. The facts are:- The land in question was

admittedly assessed waste land belonging to the Government. This land was cultivated upon by the first defendant as early as 1933. In 1933 the

land was saline, uneven and entirely unfit for cultivation. The 1st defendant leveled it and replaced the soil and made it fit for growing wet crops at

considerable expense in the course of many years. But before the first defendant could reap the benefits of reclamation work of many years of hard

labour at considerable cost this land was assigned to the plaintiff as ""veera manyam"" for his participation in the freedom struggle. The 1st defendant

is naturally bent upon resisting this veeramanyam. On account of the fact that the plaintiff was not able to get possession, he filed the suit for

possession and for future profits.

These facts relating to 2 acres and 97 cents of land coming under the High Level Channel Scheme cannot be disputed. In fact both sides agreed

on the correctness of the facts established and set out by the Courts below and reproduced in the previous paragraph by me. It is unnecessary to

follow the various defenses put forward because both the Courts have found it very easy to demolish the claim because the Sivayjimadar''s land

was at the disposal of the Government and the Sivayjimadar having a preferential right to be assigned the land cannot as of right insist upon its

being given to him on dharkast. If he had continued in occupation for 40 years more and completed every day of the sixty years, he would then be

able to prescribe title by limitation and adverse possession. That is not the case here. See Ramakrishna Iyer v. The State of Madras S.A. 693 of

1955 (4112 of 1957).

There are two Government Orders however on which the learned Advocate, Mr. Champakesa Ayyangar relies for making out that even in the

case of assessed waste compensation could be directed to be paid by the Hero of Freedom Struggle before dispossessing the Sivayjamadar. The

learned District Munsif has examined this question exhaustively in paragraphs 16 and 17 of his judgment and has ended it by saying.

In the absence of reliable date I refrain from giving the costs of the reclamation and improvement of the suit land.

He need not have taken such a despairing view of the case. The evidence in the case clearly shows that the improvement would have cost not

less than Rs. 1000 per acre. In this case as the extent to be reclaimed comes roughly to three acres we may estimate the expense at Rs. 3000.

The two Government Orders, are firstly G. O. 21023/F/52.16 - dated 16th June 1952 of the Revenue Department. In that Government Order

the Government examined the question as to the rights, at least morally of the Sivayjimadars who have reclaimed waste land at great cost and

which have subsequently been assigned to political sufferers. The Government held that all Sivayjima occupation prior to application by a political

sufferer should be protected. The kind of protection contemplated is made clear in another G.O. namely, G. O. 1508, Revenue, dated 29th May

1953. In that Order they say where a political sufferer under the old policy of assignment has been allowed to be or been put in possession of the

land under the old policy of the Government enunciated in G. O. 1523, Revenue, dated 11th June 1949 and he is a landless poor person who

would have been entitled under the ordinary rules to such assignment he need not be disturbed as a result of the New Policy and the assignment

may be confirmed subject to payment of such amounts as may be ordered by Government in favour of a previous sivayjiamadar who was in

possession and who is found to have spent money or labour in reclaiming or improving the land. In such cases it is not necessary to enforce the

new rule regarding market value for valuable land specified in G. O. 1957, Revenue, dated 7th July 1952 and No. 82 Revenue dated 9th January

1953. This Order reads as if in such cases the Government will pay the amount of compensation to the Sivayjimadar. On that footing reference

was made to the Government in this matter. The learned Government Pleader who was good enough to correspond with the Government has

received a reply stating that there is no intention that the liability of making the payment referred to in the G.Os. cited should devolve on the

Government. There is apparently no fund ear-marked for this purpose and naturally this compensation cannot be paid from the general revenues.

The net result is that this Thyagi will have to pay compensation or he should be given grant of land untrammelled by restrictions arising from old

occupation by Sivayjimadars and entitled to be compensated.

The relief which the plaintiff has asked for can be moulded in this way. The plaintiff would be entitled to evict the first defendant and take

possession of the land if he pays him compensation in a sum of Rs. 3000 or if he prefers not to pay any compensation he may apply to the

Collector who I am sure will assign to this Thyagi land of similar description which might be available at the disposal of the Government without

such onerous prior responsibility or charge upon it as otherwise the good intentions of the Government will be defeated and thus deserving peoples

who made sacrifices in the cause of the freedom of the country would go unrecognised and would not derive real benefit from the enlightened

policy of the Government in the matter of assigning lands to political sufferers. In case the plaintiff elects to be assigned another parcel of land the

Collector of Tiruchirapalli may assign the suit land to the Sivayjimadar on payment of necessary charges under R. 10, of B.S.O. 15 etc. This

amount of Rs. 3000 will be a charge on the suit land. Time to pay the compensation amount six months. This appeal is disposed of accordingly and

in the circumstances each party will bear his costs throughout. Memorandum of cross objections dismissed. No costs.