Decided on February 15,1967

C.K. VIJAYAN Respondents


- (1.) THE Cochin Devaswom Board constituted under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious institutions Act, 1950, is the petitioner before us. THE sole question for determination is whether the application of the Devaswom Verumpattam (Settlement) Proclamation, XXIII of 1118 M. E. , has been affected by the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
(2.) S. 132 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, deals with repeals and savings. Sub-section (1) of that section repeals the following enactments: (1) Proclamation XVI of 1122 (Cochin), dated the 14th February 1947. (2) Proclamation VI of 1124 (Cochin)dated 12th January 1949 , (3) Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars protection Act, 1962, and (4) Kerala Tenants and Kudikidapukars Protection Act, 1963. And sub-section (2): (1) Cochin Verumpattamdars Act, VIII of 1118, (2) Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of kudikidappukars Act, 1955. (3) Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, and (4) Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent)Act, 1956. Sub-section (4) of that section repeals the Kerala Agrarian relations Act, 1960. It is clear from S. 132 that the Devaswom Verumpattom (Settlement) Proclamation, XXIII of 1118 M. E. , is not one of the enactments specifically repealed by the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. As a matter of fact sub-section (1) of S. 114 of that Act embodies an amendment of the said proclamation. That sub-section reads as follows: "ss. 7 and 9 of the Devaswom Verumpattamdars (Settlement) Proclamation, XXIII of 1118, shall be omitted. " This must naturally mean that sub-section (1) of S. 114 visualises the continuance of the other sections of the Proclamation. The contention of counsel for the respondent, however, is not that there has been any repeal except of S. 7 and 9 of the Devaswom Verumpattam (Settlement) Proclamation, xxiii of 1118 M. E. The contention is that there is a specific provision in the kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, by which the provisions of the Act will prevail over the provisions of the Proclamation whenever they are in conflict with each other.
(3.) THE section invoked is S. 127 of the Act. That Section reads as follows: "the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other law or any custom or usage or in any contract, express or implied, inconsistent with the provisions of this act. " A provision like this does not spell a repeal of the enactments in conflict with the Act in which it occurs. It assumes the continuance of those provisions and only provides for a rule of predominance of the provisions of the Act over any other provision occupying the same field and dealing with the same subject.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.