Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.
1. In this application for the issue of a writ of mandamus the petitioner prays for the issue of directions injuncting the respondents from taking proceedings under the provisions of Act XXVI of 1948 with regard to the village of Veyinipatti alias Rayinipatti. The petitioner is the owner of this village which was granted on a permanent cowle by the then Zamindarini of Sivaganga to two individuals. There , were successive devolutions in the title to this village, the petitioner being the last of such purchasers.
2. The complications which have led to the present petition have been due to the misunderstanding on the part of the State Government in regard to the tenure of this village. After the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948, was passed and was brought into force the Government published a Notification on nth August, 1949, notifying inter alia the zamindari estate of Sivaganga. The text of this Notification ran:
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 1 (4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948), His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby appoints the 7th day of September, 1949, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act other than...shall come into force in the zamindari estates specified in the Schedule below:
As already mentioned Sivaganga estate was one of the items set out in the Schedule. Subsequently another Notification G.O. Ms. No. 2159 (Revenue), dated 22nd August, 1949, was published appointing 7th September, 1949, as the date on which the provisions of the Act would come into force in respect of the under-tenure estate Specified in the Schedule to the notification. The village of Veyinipatti was specified as item No. 42 of the under-tenure estates within the parent estate of sivaganga. There was also a separate notification under Act XXX of 1947 in relation to this village as an under-tenure. The compensation amount in regard to the main estate as well as the village of Veyinipatti was also calculated on the basis of their being separate entities and interim payment on the basis of the compensation thus arrived at was also made before the Abolition Tribunal.
3. At this stage the petitioner filed a petition in the High Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the Notification G.O. Ms. No. 2159 (Revenue), dated 22nd August, 1949, notifying the village as an under-tenure estate on the ground of its being illegal. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on nth September, 1953 and on the finding that Veyinipatti was not an under-tenure estate the notification was quashed.
4. The State Government authorities, however, proceeded on the basis that the decision of this Court holding the notification of the village as an under-tenure was invalid, did not negative the position that the village was a part of the zamindari parent estate and called on the concerned parties to apply for pattas under the relevant provisions of Act XXVI of 1948. The land-owner, the petitioner, here, thereupon filed a petition before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Sivaganga, to drop these proceedings on the ground that there had been no specific notification of this village under Section 1(4) of the Abolition Act so as to attract the other provisions of the enactment to this village. This petition, however, was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner on 13th February, 1956. The petitioner in his affidavit in support of this petition, states that he withdrew this petition before the Assistant Settlement Officer because he had been informed by the Assistant Settlement Officer that there had been a specific Notification by Government on 13th November, 1954, under Section 1 (4) of the Abolition Act. He further states that on examination he found that this information was incorrect and that there had been no such notification specifically referring to this hamlet. He has therefore filed the present petition praying for the relief which I have set out in the opening portion of the judgment. This petition was filed in April, 1956 and subsequent thereto the Government issued a Notification, dated 31st May, 1956, formally deleting Veyinipatti from the list of under-tenure villages notified in G.O. Ms. No. 2159 (Revenue), dated 22nd August, 1949. This last Notification, it would be seen, merely gave effect to the decision of this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and has really no relevance for deciding the points arising in this petition.
5. It has now fairly to be conceded that Veyinipatti was and continued always to be part of the parent estate of Sivaganga. The question, is really concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Srinivasa Ayyangar : AIR1956Mad597 where the Court held that when a darmila inam does not relate to the entire village but only to a fraction of it, it must be held to retain its character as part of the estate in the hands of the inamdar and when the estate is notified under Section 1 (4) of the Act the inam will vest in the State under Section 3(b) ; if the only notification issued in the present case was that relating to the parent estate of Sivaganga, there can be no controversy that the village of Veyinipatti would have Vested in the Government as part of the Sivaganga estate. The contention, however, raised by Mr. Sundaram Ayyar was that in notifying the Sivaganga estate the Government must be taken to have excluded the hamlet of Veyinipatti specified in the other Notification G.O. Ms. No. 2159, dated 22nd August, 1949, as an under-tenure estate. The argument was that the two notifications must be read together and that if so read, the intention of the Government when they notified the taking over of the Sivaganga estate must be to take over only that portion of the Sivaganga zamindari which was not comprehended by the other Notification in relation to the under-tenures. Learned Counsel urged that if the Government had specifically excluded particular areas out of the, zamin estate from the operation of the Notification the Government would have no right over the areas thus excluded and that the resulting position arising from the existence of these two Notifications ought in law to be the same.
6. It is unnecessary to decide in this case as to whether the Government have the right under the terms of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 to notify only parts of a zamindari estate excluding areas which are the intergral parts of it from the operation of the enactment. But that, however, is not the position in the present case. The G.O. Ms. No. 2093 (Revenue), dated 11th August, 1949, notified the entire Sivaganga estate as a zamin estate which was taken over and if on the terms of the Notification the hamlet now in question would have been comprehended I do not see any principle of law by reason of which such effect could be cut down. Learned Counsel stressed that what the Court must look at was the intention of the Government and that that intention should be gathered in the present case by looking at the two notifications which were to come into effect on the same date. I am, however, of the view that the statutory effect of noti fiying the entire estate of Sivaganga as a zamin estate to be taken over cannot be whittled down by reference to the intention or the supposed intention of the notifying authority. If it were permissible to speculate on the intention of the Government one thing is clear, namely, that they intended to take over Veyinipatti. The fact that they intended to take over this hamlet as an under-tenure does not in my opinion detract from that intention which was to take it over. Undoubtedly the Government committed a mistake in treating this as under-tenure but they are not on that account disabled from relying on the notification of the Sivaganga zamin as sufficient to clothe them with authority to treat this hamlet as having been vested in them.
7. In my judgment the position taken up by the Government and the Estate Abolition Authorities that the hamlet stood vested in the Government by reason of the Notification of the parent estate of Sivaganga is correct. The petition fails and is dismissed and the rule discharged. There will, however, be no order as to costs.