By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land

Taken from: Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Synopsis

• All Lands Belonged to one Janmi or Other; Sircar was the largest Janmi
• Effect of Royal Proclamation, 1899 – Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Lands
• Further Development – Pandaravaka and Janmam Lands  
• Pandaravaka Lands Nature- State landlord; right in Ryot derived from Sirkar
• Pattom Proclamation of 1040 – converted Tenants into Permanent Leases
• Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, 1955
• Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 & Land History
• Land Belonged to Chief of Poonjar was Transferred to Travancore
• Poonjar Raja was a Janmi
• Royal proclamation dated 24.09.1899 – the Sircar became Janmi
• All Lands Belonged to one Janmi or Other
• Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971
• ‘Pandaravaka lands’ and ‘Janmam lands’.
• Kanan Devan Lands were ‘Pandaravaka lands’
• Grant and the Right of Ownership
• Grant – Land Continues to be Government lands

‘Jenmom Lands’ & Freehold Interest in Travancore

The lands granted by Erstwhile (Travancore or Cochin) Sircar continued to be lands belonging to the Sircar, and the grantees did not acquire absolute proprietary rights. It is made clear in the following decisions.

Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. The State Of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301	Kenan Devan Hills Concession (on grant deeds) fall within the expression “Janmam right” vested with Sircar. This land is dealt with under this heading, i.e. Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar.
State of Kerala v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 272	Company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession Area (on grant deeds)
Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86	A coffee planter who holds lands under a grant  is not a Jenmi.
Majeed v. State of Kerala,(2006) 1 KerLT 19	Petitioner contended – ‘grant’ was free hold property. The court did not accept.
Thomas Philip v. Forest Range Officer, 2021-2 KerLT 578	Arguement that deed of ‘grant’ ‘for coffee or tea cultivation’ was not a grant, but a title deed was not accepted

All Lands Belonged to one Janmi or Other; Sircar was the largest Janmi

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. This land is dealt with under this heading, i.e. Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar.

Points came for consideration were the following:

• 15. If any person wants land in Travancore, he must obtain it from, and hold it of, some one of the body of Janmis, i.e. from the Sircar, which is the Chief Janmi, or from some other Janmi.” (Sir T. Madava Row’s Memo.) In Mr. Kunhiraman Nair’s Memo on Land -Tenures it is stated:
• “At present the Sircar is the largest Janmi in the State. The janmam lands of all the petty Rajas subdued in the last few centuries and of several Madampies, have lapsed to the State, and other causes such as escheat & c, have tended, to increase the extent of the Janmam possession of the Sircar. About three- fourths of the whole land in the State belong on Janmam to the Sircar, the remaining one-fourth being distributed among the classes mentioned in para 32 It is interesting to note that in certain parts of Madras Janmam rights existed ‘and the ‘Government lands were called government janman lands.
• (See Government Order No. 1902 Revenue dated November 1, 1926) Para 3 of that order deals with the janmam estates and reads as under :
• “3. JANMABHOGAM.-Paragraph 11 of ‘the Board’s Proceedings-“Lands have neither to been des- cribed as-
• Government Janmam, i.e. lands which are held directly from the Government and on which taram assessment and janmabhogam are paid to the Government and
• private janmam, i.e. lands which are held directly from the Government and on which taram assessment but not janmabhogam is paid to the Government.”

In Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, it is also found as under:

• “12. Janmam lands are precisely what are in Europe called allodial properties as contra-distinguished from feudal.
• 13. It must be clear from what has been stated that all the lands in the Travancore belonged to a body of janmis. There are no lands that do not belong to some janmi or other.
• 14. Be it remembered that the Sircar itself is one of these janmis, it having come to possess janmam lands by gift, purchase, escheat, confiscation and other ways. It is only a great janmi, great in the sense that its janmam property is extensive.”

Effect of Royal Proclamation, 1899 – Sircar became the Janmi

In Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, our Apex Court concluded that the effect of the Royal Proclamation of 1899 (regarding the land leased by Poonjar Chief to Munro) must be that the Sircar became the Janmi. It was observed as under:

• “It seems to us that 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.”
• Note: Poonjar Chief or Raja had subjugated himself to Travancore Sircar or Maharaja.

Pandaravaka and Janmam Lands Further Development

After making a definite finding that the land with Poonjar Raja was a janmam land and it became vested with Travancore Sircar, an alternative argument was considered by the Apex Court in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, as under:

• “Assuming that the lands do not fall with ‘Janmam Right’, we may now deal with the second point:
• In the Travancore Land Revenue Manual, Vol. III, Revised Edition, 1936, Registered Lands are described as follows
  • “Registered lands are lands registered in the revenue accounts as held by or granted to individuals, families, corporations or institutions, and comprise all the different kinds of tenures bearing either the full assessment or wholly or partially free of assessment. These lands comprise not only the areas brought under cadastral survey but include also coffee, tea, rubber and other estates, cardamom gardens and other special grants outside the limits of cadastral survey.”
• The Registered Lands include 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.”

In the Travancore Land Revenue Manual, Vol. III, Registered Lands are described as under.

• “Registered lands are lands registered in the revenue accounts as held by or granted to individuals, families, corporations or institutions, and comprise all the different kinds of tenures bearing either the full assessment or wholly or partially free of assessment. …” (Quoted in: Kannan Devan Hills Produce v.  The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301)

Section 4(1) of the Kerala Grants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980, reads as under:

• “4. Grantees and lessees to pay current seigniorage rates – Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any grant, lease deed, contract or agreement, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, every grantee and every lessee shall be bound to pay to the Government the seigniorage rates in force for the time being for the timber cut and removed from any land held by him under the grant or lease.”

A Janmam Right is FREEHOLD interest described as “Estate” in Constitution

“In common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales, Australia, Canada, and Ireland, a freehold is the common mode of ownership of real property, or land, and all immovable structures attached to such land. It is in contrast to a leasehold, in which the property reverts to the owner of the land after the lease period expires or otherwise lawfully terminates” (Wikipedia). It doesn’t mean that such lands are free from payment of tax or revenue to the Government.

Travancore State Manual Vol. III published by the Travancore Government in 1940, says as to the class of jenmom land which were entirely freehold and exempted from payment of any kind of tax to Government under any circumstances. These were the special properties given by the Ruler to certain individuals considering their valid services or to certain institutions including temples.

‘Jenmom’ was the proprietary interest of a landlord in lands (Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080). Subba Rao, J., observed as under:

• “Under the definition, any janmam right in Kerala is an “estate”. A janmam 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 janmam interest may, therefore, be described as “proprietary interest of a landlord in lands” and such a janmam right is described as “estate” in the Constitution. Substituting “janmam right” in place of “estate” in cl. 2 (b), the “rights” in Art. 31 A (1) (a) will include the rights of a proprietor and subordinate tenure-holders in respect of a janmam right.
• It follows that the extinguishment or modification of a right refers to the rights of a proprietor or a subordinate tenure-holder in the janmam right. A proprietor called the janmi or his subordinate tenure-holder has certain defined rights in janmam right”. Land-tenures in Malabar are established by precedents or immemorial usage. Janmam right is a freehold interest in property and the landlord is called  “janmi”. He can create many subordinate interests or tenures therein.” (Quoted in: Kannan Devan Hills Produce v.  The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301)

In the Jenmi and Kudiyan Regulation, V of 1071, Jenmom land is defined as-

• “land (other than Pandaravaka, Sripandaravaka, Kandukrishi or Sircar Devaswom land, recognised as such in the Sircar accounts) which is either entirely exempt from Government tax or if assessed to public revenue, is subject to Rajabhogam only, and the occupancy right in; which is created for a money consideration (Kanom) and is also subject to the payment of Michavaram or customary dues and the payment of the renewal fees.”

The Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, V of 1071, defines ‘Jenmi’ as under:

• ” ‘Jenmi’ means a person in whom the proprietary right over Jenmom lands is vested and includes, in the case of Devaswoms owning Jenmom lands, the managing Trustee or Trustees of the Institution for the time being.”

In Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86, it was observed with respect to the ‘Janmi’ as under:

• “What the definition stresses is the proprietary right in the land. We may in this connection extract a passage from the Memorandum of Mr. Kunhiraman Nair, one of the Judges of the High Court of Travancore, about 70 years ago:
• “The term ‘Jenmom’ was originally used by the Brahmins exclusively to denote their allodial proprietorship and is still used in that sense in courts and cutcherries in Travancore, though in other parts of Malayalam and in popular parlance in Travancore, the term is now universally employed to denote the full proprietary right in the land of any class of people”.

Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, further observed as under:

• “18. Coming to the second category of lands, viz., Jenmom lands, the Jenmies have full proprietary rights in the soil. The origin of the title of the jenmies is shrouded in obscurity but the development of this branch of land tenure was on the assumption that Parasurama who conquered the land of Kerala or, as mythology would put it, reclaimed it from the sea, gave it as gift to Malayala Brahmins or Nambudiries. The rest of the people cultivated the lands under the Jenmies. In course of time, the Jenmies endowed certain temples built by them with lands and thus the Devaswom lands came into existence. These were similar in nature and incidents to Jenmom lands. These lands were enjoyed free of tax, the State imposing a light assessment only when the Jenmies alienated the land to others.

In the Travancore Land Revenue Manual Volume 4 it is, stated

• “9. A Jamni differs from such landlords in that he does not derive his title to lands from the Sircar & Co. His title to the Janmam lands is inherent. …….. (Quoted in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218)

Nature of Pandaravaka Lands – State is landlord; rights in Ryots only derived from Sirkar

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

• “Pandaravaka or Sirkar 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 Sirkar. They form the major portion of the registered lands.” (Quoted in -Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86)

Pattom proclamation of 1040 – converted Tenants into Permanent Leases

Before 1040 M. E. the holders of Pandaravaka lands were mere tenants-at-will as the tenements created by the Sirkar till then was resumable and were of the nature of temporary leases just like tenements created by private jenmis. The pattom 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)

Edavagas:

The lands in the following areas were recognized in Sirkar Accounts as Edavagas:-

• 1.  Sreepadam.  
  • It comprised in 7 pakuthies in Chirayinkil Taluk.
  • These villages were originally hereditary domain of Ranis Attangal. Subsequently the sovereignty was transferred to Travancore Maha Raja.
  • Rent was collected from this land and accounted as public revenue.
• 2.  Kilimanur.
  • It comprised in 2 pakuthies in Chirayinkil Taluk.
  • This land was granted to Kilimanur Koil Thampurans.
  • The land revenue was assigned to the family of Koil Thampurans.
• 3.  Edappally.
  • It comprised in Edappally North and Edappally South Pakuthies in Alangad Taluk; Thrukkunnappuzha in Karthikappally Taluk; Kallooppara in Thiruvalla Taluk; and Vazhakkulam in Kunnathunad Taluk.
  • The land revenue was assigned to the Chief of the Edappally Edavaga.
• 4. Vanjipuzha
  • The administration and collection of rent from the tenants in this Edavaga was left to be settled by the Chief in 3 Pakuthies in Peermedu Taluk.
• 5.  Poonjar
  • It comprised in Poonjar Pakuthi in Peermedu Taluk.
  • This Edavaga was the property of Poonjar Rajas.
  • They received grants from early sovereigns of Travancore.
  • According to the tradition, the Edavaga was purchased by the Rajas from Thekkumkur and from annexation of Thekkumkur by Travancore, the Poonjar Chief became the vassal of Travancore.

Edavagais

In Harska Turst v. State of Kerala, ILR  1960 Ker 345, 1960 Ker LT 378, it is observed as under:

• “ The Edavagais were petty kingdoms or principalities which remained independent or quasi independent until the consolidation of Travancore in the 18th century. They were outside the State Ayacut and paid no land tax. The Chiefs, however, in exercise of their ancient sovereign powers, collected Melvaram or Melvara Rajgbhogam from the jenmis inside the Edavagais (See: 1945 T. L. R. 581 and 728).”

In Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, 2018-2 KLT 369, it is observed as under:

• “The Edavagai Act intended acquisition and extinguishing of all Edavagai rights over the Edavagais of Edapally, Kilimanoor, Poonjar and Vanjipuzha; then vested respectively in the Edapally Swaroopam, Kilimanoor Kottaram, Poonjar Koickal and Vanjipuzha Madom. Obviously Edavagai Chiefs were the Vassals of the Travancore-Maharaja and had rights over the lands within their jurisdiction as jenmies and otherwise, for collection of rent.”

Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, 1955

Harska Turst v. State of Kerala, ILR  1960 Ker 345, 1960 Ker LT 378, observed as under:

•  “8. The rights of the Poonjar Chief were acquired by the State under the Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, 1955, which came into force on 1-1-1956. Edavagai rights is defined in S.2(5) of that Act as follows:
• Edavagai rights means all the rights and privileges vested in
  • the Edapally Swaroopam,
  • the Kilimanoor Kottaram,
  • the Poonjar Koickal and
  • the Vanjipuzha Matom
•  relating to heir respective Edavagais and includes in the case of the Poonjar Koickal the right to receive Melvaram in respect of lands situate within the Edavagai of Poonjar.
• 9. Sub-s.(1) of S.3 of the Act provided that on and from its commencement, the privileges of the Edapally Swaroopam and the Poonjar Koickal relating to Excise Revenues of the Edavagais of Edapally and Poonjar shall stand extinguished, and sub-s.(2):
  • “All the Edavagai rights of the Edapally Swaroopam and the Poonjar Koickal other than those mentioned in sub-section [1] and all the Edavagai rights of the Kilimanoor Kottaram and the Vanjipuzha Matom over their respective Edavagais, and all rights, title and interests vested in the Chiefs, in respect of waste lands or thanathu lands which have been assigned by them on Kuthagapattom or other like demises,
  • and all rights, title and interests vested in the Chiefs, in respect of waste lands or thanathu lands which have not been so assigned by them are hereby acquired by Government, and all such rights, title and interests shall vest in Government free of all encumbrances.”
• Sub-s.(2) of S.4 fixed the compensation payable by the Government to the Edavagais for the acquisition of the rights, title, and interests mentioned in sub-s.(2) of S.3 at the amounts as specified in the Schedule, being 8 1/3 times the annual income of the respective Edavagais less five per cent for collection charges. It is clear from these provisions that what was acquired was the Chiefs rights, and it is difficult to understand how the acquisition of those rights can possibly affect the right of the State to tax the lands concerned.
• 10. The right to basic tax is in no sense a manifestation of the Chiefs right to Melvaram. It is a right founded on the Constitution and not on the acquisition of the rights of the Edavagais.”

Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, did Not change Character of Holdings

Lease holdings of the Edavagais continued as Lease holdings with liability to pay Tax.

In Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, 2018-2 KLT 369, it is pointed out-The Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, 1955 did not change the character of the holdings and it only interfered with the right, title and interest of the respective Edavagais; they made made to vest with the Government. The effect was that the liability of the tenants to pay rent or other levies to the Edavagais stood altered as liability to tax imposed by the Government.

The 1955 Act is analysed in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, as under:

• “There was also a saving clause in Section 11 which exempted from vesting, those lands held by the Chiefs as a Jenmy or as a pattadar under the Government and those held by the families, already settled and assessed, as also those lands in the direct possession of the Chiefs and any of the members of the respective families.”

Then it is observed by the High Court of Kerala as under:

• “Hence land existing on a lease from either of the Edavagais or as freehold on valid purchase made, continues in the possession and ownership of the land holder/lessee and the liability to payment of rent or other levies to the Edavagais would stand altered as liability to tax imposed by the Government. This does not change the character of the holdings and only interferes with the right, title and interest of the respective Edavagais; which stands vested with the Government.”
• It was pointed out-
  • “The ‘Edavagai Rights’ is defined under sub-section (5), as the rights and privileges which vested in the families and ‘Chief’ was defined under sub-section (6) as the senior male member of the respective families, in whom the management of the family is vested.”
  • “The right, title and interest within the respective Edavagais, existing in favour of the families and the Chiefs, by the enactment, stood vested in the Government, free of all encumbrances.”
• Note: Here the High Court of Kerala (in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, 2018-2 KLT 369) did not consider the effect of grant.

Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 & Land History

The Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 was enacted for the resumption of Kannan Devan lands, other than plantations in Kannan Devan Hills Village in Kottayam District and for the distribution of such lands for cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto. (Kottayam District Koottu Krishi Karshakasangam v. Stateof Kerala, 2015)

Constitution Bench of our Apex Court, in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, upheld the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act.

Land Belonged to Chief of Poonjar was Transferred to Travancore

The Chief of Poonjar (H.H. the Maharaja – as mentioned in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, Para 11) granted a lease for coffee cultivation (First Poonjat Concession) in 1877 without limit of time to late J.D. Munro of a tract of land known as Anchunad and Kannan Devan Hills. The chief was the Janmam holder (proprietary interest of a landlord in lands – Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, Para 11.

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 land described in the First Poonjat Concession had been transferred to the Government of Travancore.(Kottayam District Koottu Krishi Karshakasangam v. Stateof Kerala, 2015)

Poonjar Raja was a Janmi

Our Apex Court in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, observed that the Poonjar Raja was a Janmi when the First Concession was granted and the whole lands have fallen within the expression ‘Janmam right’.

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

The Poonjar Chief surrendered certain rights, to Travancore Sircar, which he had been exercising over the tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills. The Apex Court, in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, considered the effect of this surrender, with reference of its previous judgment in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras (1960 (3) SCR 887) and observed, on the materials placed before the Court, that it was difficult to resist the conclusion that the lands in dispute fall within the expression ‘Janmam right’.

But the Royal Proclamation dated 24.9.1899 changed the situation.

Royal proclamation dated 24.09.1899 – the Sircar became Janmi

By a Royal proclamation dated 24.09.1899, the rights of the Poonjar Edavagai over the said tracts became vested in the Government of Travancore. The persons in possession of such lands were treated only as lessees under the Government. Government of Kerala, successor of the former Government of Travancore, was vested with the right, title and interest of the former Government.

As already explained, while perusing the nature of ‘janmam right’ it was held by our Apex  Court in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras, 1960-3 S.C.R. 887, Subba Rao, J., observed:

• (i) As per the definition in Royal proclamation, any janmam right in Kerala is an “estate”.
• (ii) A janmam right is the freehold interest in a property situated in Kerala (with liability to pay tax).
• (iii) Moor in his “Malabar Law and Custom” describes it as a hereditary proprietorship.
• (iv) A janmam interest may, therefore, be described as “proprietary interest of a landlord in lands“, and
• (v) Such a janmam right is described as “estate” in the Constitution.” (Quoted in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218)

All Lands Belonged to one Janmi or Other

As already stated, in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, it is observed as under:

• “13. It must be clear from what has been stated that all the lands in the Travancore belonged to a body of janmis. There are no lands that do not belong to some janmi or other.
• 14. Be it remembered that the Sircar itself is one of these janmis, it having come to possess janmam lands by gift, purchase, escheat, confiscation and other ways. It is only a great janmi, great in the sense that its janmam property is extensive.”

Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971

Later the Kerala Government found that a large extent of agricultural lands in Kannan Devan Hills Village had not been converted into plantations and such lands are not required for the purpose of existing plantations. Accordingly, the Government decided to resume such lands for distribution for cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto. Consequent to this, Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 was enacted. (Kottayam District Koottu Krishi Karshakasangam v. Stateof Kerala, 2015)

Kannan Devan Hills Produce 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.) considered –

• 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.)

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’.

The position taken by the State was –

• 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.
• 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.
• Clause 5 of the Deed of Ratification, is important. It pro- vides, 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.

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 “estateand it is the freehold interest.
• The Sircar itself is one of these janmisand 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 held that it was difficult to resist the conclusion that the lands in dispute fall within the expression “Janmam right” vested with Sircar.

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.

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

Position of jenmi

This definition is intended for the purposes of the Regulation, which regulates the relations between Janmis and their Kanapattom tenants. A Janmi has not only Kanapattom tenants but has other tenants as well holding on Adima Anubhogam, Thiruvulam and similar other tenures and the Regulation is not concerned with the latter class of tenants in whose case the ordinary law of landlord and tenant is applicable. Revenue law, on the other hand, makes no distinction between a Kanapattom tenant and a non Kanapattom tenant if he holds under a Janmi recognised in the revenue accounts.

Hence for revenue purposes, janmam lands were lands that were entered in the revenue accounts under the heads of Devaswomvaka, Brahmamaswomvaka and Madampimarvaka, i.e., to say a land to be classed as Janmom land should have been recognised as such in the revenue accounts. The mere circumstance that a land belongs to a janmi does not bring it under janmom tenure and conversely the mere fact that janmom land is absolutely transferred to a non janmi does not any the less detract from its original character. Janmom  lands are allodial properties and the proprietary right in them is considered as inherent in the individual and not derived from the State. The Apex Court in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, observed that, the State grants like Kannan 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. (Kottayam District Koottu Krishi Karshakasangam v. Stateof Kerala, 2015)

Kerala Grants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980

Kerala Grants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to modify the rights under grants and leases, for cultivation, made by the former States of Travancore and Cochin. The Act was made for the reason that such grants and leases brought about heavy loss to the Government and they resulted in huge un-earned profits to the grantees and lessees; and it was found necessary in the public interest that such undue profits to a few person were to be utilised for the common benefit of the general public. The Act required the Grantees and lessees to pay current seigniorage rates (for the trees cut by the grantees and leases) and rent to the Government. The Collector was authorised to revise assessment and rent.

Grant and the Right of Ownership

In  Majeed v. State of Kerala,(2006) 1 KerLT 19, the State demanded seigniorage under  Kerala Grants and Leases Modification of Rights Act, 1980. Petitioner was a person who purchased trees from Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Ltd. Disputes and questions arose in the light of of the Kerala Grants & Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980. Admittedly there was originally a grant. The scope of ‘grant’ was disputed. The contention of the petitioner was that it was the free hold property. The court did not accept the argument.

• The rejected contention was stated by the Court as – “The petitioner contends that the respondents have no authority to demand seigniorage in respect of the timber of the trees planted by the company, as the property in question granted in favour of the company is not a leasehold property, but a free hold property, as is revealed by the order of grant Exts. R2(i).”

Grant – Land Continues to be Government lands

During second half of the 19^th century in erstwhile Kingdoms in South India gave very large extent of Government lands were on “grant” to various persons (mostly foreigners) or institutions for putting up plantation.

The Royal Proclamation made on 24.9.1899 recites as follows;

• “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.”

---