Order.- In the South Arcot, there are certain hill villages. One of these is known as Jadayagoundan Jagir and another Kurumbagoundan Jagir. According to the Manual of Salem District, these hill estates, as they were called, belonged to certain Poligars. The hill villages were never surveyed and there were no sannads or other documents in the possession of the Poligars from which information regarding their tenure could be obtained. The Manual states that they had been granted in connection with the Kavali offices of the Poligars. These offices were abolished in F. 1216. Apparently, the services attached to the grant had ceased to exist. At the time of the Inam Commission, it was stated that the inams appeared to have been granted by a former government, but by whom and in what year were not known. There were proceedings in the office of the Collector of the year 1813 declaring that the proceeds of the hill villages were not to be added to the government account and that they should be enjoyed by the Poligar himself. But the Inam Commissioner imposed a quit rent of one-eights of the whole income of these villages. In his proceedings under section 127 (2) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, the Regional Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards declared the local area specified in Schedule 1 to the notification to be a village for the purpose of the Madras Village Panchayats Act. He specified the number of villages which were to form the Panchayat and directed also the area to be divided into wards. Such a notification was issued forming Kariyalur Panchayat which included 44 villages comprising the Jadayagoundan Jagir. In a like manner, a notification was issued forming Pudupalapattu Panchayat covering 41 villages forming Kurumbagoundan Jagir. In W.P. No. 16 of 1962, the petitioner is the owner of Jadaya goundan Jagir. The petitioner in W.P. No. 17 of 1962 is the present owner of Kurumbagoundan Jagir. In these petitions, the notifications issued by the Regional Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards, South Arcot, are attacked as wholly without jurisdiction. The facts set out in the affidavits accompanying these petitions are almost identical. According to the petitioners, these jagirs remained unassessed even long after the advent of the British Government and did not come under consideration during the general resumption of Poligar lands in F-1216. The facts set out in the affidavits accompanying these petitions are almost identical. According to the petitioners, these jagirs remained unassessed even long after the advent of the British Government and did not come under consideration during the general resumption of Poligar lands in F-1216. The Inam Commissioner confirmed the villages as if they were inam villages. The Jagadirs’ income was derived from the imposition of taxes on ploughs, levy of poll-tax and income from forest produce. Each jagir consists of some groups of villages but, according to these petitioners, these villages are nothing but haphazard collection of huts. The villages have no defined boundaries. The location of the villages also changed from time to time following the shifting cultivation which is a feature of these hills. It is stated that in several so-called villages, less than a dozen persons live. A group of about ten villages is in charge of a Moopan, who collects the revenue which the Jagirdar is entitled to collect. There exists a local organisation for each group of ten villages. There is one authority known as the Nattar, who grants permission to the inhabitants of the hills for marriages. These persons are under the control of the Jagirdar. It is claimed that there are no village officers. Full proprietory ownership of the hills vests in the Jagirdars and the inhabitants of the hills have only certain customary rights. There are in fact no villages and no village sites. There are no public roads or pathways. In this state of things, it is contended by the petitioners that the provisions of the Madras Village Panchayats Act cannot be applied to this area. The petitioners urged that the Act is intended to be applied only to recognised local areas which constitute revenue villages which have all the features of a village as generally understood. Reference is made in the affidavit to the functions of a Panchayat as embodied in the provisions of the Act and it is urged that in the case of these hill villages, these functions can hardly be performed. The entire area is forest area which belongs absolutely to the Jagirdars and the creation of Panchayats would, according to the petitioners, interfere with the rights of the Jagirdars to these forests. It is contended again that the notification of the entire jagir as single Panchayat village is opposed to the provisions of the Act. The entire area is forest area which belongs absolutely to the Jagirdars and the creation of Panchayats would, according to the petitioners, interfere with the rights of the Jagirdars to these forests. It is contended again that the notification of the entire jagir as single Panchayat village is opposed to the provisions of the Act. Equally, the division of the area into wards, each ward consisting of certain number of villages, is said to be not in consonance with the scheme or the underlying policy of the Act. The more important aspect of the objection of these petitioners is that in the guise of applying the Madras Village Panchayats Act to the area, it is sought to deprive the Jagirdars of their right of proprietorship in these areas. It is stated that with the formation of the Panchayats, there would be a vesting in the Panchayats of prombokes, communal lands and the like, which do not really exist in this area. Since the entire area is claimed to belong to the Jagirdars, the application of the Act with the consequences indicated would amount to confiscation of the property of the Jagirdars in violation of Articles 31 and 19 of the Constitution. It is on these grounds that the notifications are. challenged as in excess of the powers of the authority On behalf of the State of Madras, the counter-affidavit sets out the nature of the villages. It is admitted that no survey of the fields within the hill tracts was undertaken, though there was a general survey defining the boundaries of the entire Kalroyan Hills of South Arcot, North Arcot and Salem Districts. These Jagirs are part of these Kalroyan Hills. It is claimed that the Inam Commissioner issued title deeds to the Jagirdars and the jagirs are held on payment of quit rent to the Government. It is urged in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners are entitled to enjoy only the proceeds of the hill villages and that they have no right whatsoever to the soil itself. The right of the Government over the jagir areas has been acknowledged by the Jagirdars themselves by agreeing to pay quit rent. It is denied that there are no villages. There have been inhabited localities in this area for several generations. The application of the Panchayats Act in these circumstances is not opposed to the provisions of the Act. The right of the Government over the jagir areas has been acknowledged by the Jagirdars themselves by agreeing to pay quit rent. It is denied that there are no villages. There have been inhabited localities in this area for several generations. The application of the Panchayats Act in these circumstances is not opposed to the provisions of the Act. The principal contention of the respondent is again, that, since the administration of the villages alone will vest in the Panchayat, whatever other rights the Jagirdars might have in the matter of deriving income from the jagirs or such customary control as has been exercised by them, would not in any way be interfered with. It is claimed that any local area can be declared to be a village under the Act and there can also be a notification combining several villages into one unit for the purpose of constituting a Panchayat. It is urged accordingly that the notifications are not in excess of the powers conferred by the Madras Village Panchayats Act, and in view of what has been stated with regard to the personal rights of the Jagirdars, it is contended that there is no violation of either Article 19 or Article 31. Mr. Vedantachari, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has referred to the history of these jagirs as found in the Manual of the Salem District and also indicated in the proceedings of the Inam Commissioner. His argument is that the Madras Village Panchayats Act was intended to apply only to revenue villages. By revenue villages what is apparently meant is that there should be a recognizable unit as a village with proper revenue administration with the necessary officers looking after such administration. According to him, these are only forests over which the Jagirdars alone have got any rights. Custom has established that the Jagirdar is entitled to collect a poll-tax from any person settling in that area and also to collect a plough tax for the cultivation of any portion of the jagir. There has been shifting cultivation and no fixed settlements which could be regarded even remotely as villages. When such features as one normally expects of a village do not obtain, so argues Mr. Vedantachari, where are the villages in respect of which the Panchayat can be created ? There has been shifting cultivation and no fixed settlements which could be regarded even remotely as villages. When such features as one normally expects of a village do not obtain, so argues Mr. Vedantachari, where are the villages in respect of which the Panchayat can be created ? Reference has been made to the fact that though certain places go by local names as indicated in the notifications, there has been no survey at all, and the boundaries of the villages are not also known. Reference has also been made to be Preamble to the Act. In the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, the Title of the Act is “an Act to make better provision for the administration of village affairs by Panchayats” and the Preamble reads “Whereas it is expedient to make better provision in a separate enactment for the administration of village affairs by Panchayats.” ‘Village‘ has been defined to mean “any local area which is declared to be a village under the Act.” The various provisions of the Act have been broadly referred to, to show that what is intended by this Act is to bring into existence an organisation such as a Panchayat for the purposes of local administration. But where, according to Mr. Vedantachari, there is no defined village, no permanent settlements of any description, and except for local names, no indicia of any village existing, the attempt to apply the Act is virtually an abuse of power. It is argued that the Act contemplates certain properties being vested in the Panchayat. By Chapter III of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, public roads and communal property can be vested in the Panchayats. The Panchayat is given the power to regulate the use of poromboke and communal lands. It is virtually impossible in the instant case, so it is claimed, to vest anything in the Panchayat, because the entire property comprised in the jagirs belongs only to the Jagirdars. It is a device, it is claimed., to divest the ownership of the Jagirdars by the introduction of the Panchayats. Mr. Vedantachari has also traced the development of legislation starting with Act IV of 1871, which appears to have been the earliest attempt to constitute local boards for the administration of funds for expenditure on objects of local public utility and importance. This was followed by Act V of 1884, the Madras Local Boards Act. Mr. Vedantachari has also traced the development of legislation starting with Act IV of 1871, which appears to have been the earliest attempt to constitute local boards for the administration of funds for expenditure on objects of local public utility and importance. This was followed by Act V of 1884, the Madras Local Boards Act. Such local boards were, according to the Preamble to that Act, formed among other objects, for objects of public utility c?lculated to promote the health, comfort and convenience of the inhabitants of such local areas. Several allied Acts, such as Act II of 1894, the Madras Proprietory Estates Village Service Act, IV of 1897, the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, and Act 1 of 1908, have been referred, to more with a view to show that none of these enactments was at any point of time ever sought to be applied to these jagirs than for any other purpose. It is claimed that for the first time an attempt has been made, an attempt which really seeks to put an end to the Jagirdars’ personal rights to these jagirs. At the outset, I may state that the principal apprehension of the petitioners appears to be that their personal rights, or such rights as were granted to them in the Inam proceedings would be interfered with. What exactly those rights are it is not possible to determine in these writ proceedings. Whether the large claim that is made by these petitioners, that the entirety of the lands, including the right to the soil, belongs to them, is correct or not, it is not necessary to go into. The statement in the counter-affidavit that the Panchayats are sought to be formed only for the purpose of the local administration, and that there is no attempt at interference with the lawful right of the Jagirdars has, in the circumstances to be accepted. I am unable, therefore, to agree with Mr. Vedantachari that by the formation of the Panchayats anything has been or will be done which will affect the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19 or will amount to deprivation of property without compensation. That part of the argument therefore fails. Nor am I able to see any force in the contention that the Act is not intended to apply to an area of this description. That part of the argument therefore fails. Nor am I able to see any force in the contention that the Act is not intended to apply to an area of this description. This argument again stems from the statement in the affidavit that this area is almost entirely a forest area with a few habitations here and there, which, though going by the name of villages, have none of the attributes of a village. The contention that the Village Panchayats Act was intended to be applied to only well-recognised villages with a revenue administration finds no support from the provisions. Section 2 of the Act defines a village to mean any local area which is declared to be a village under the Act. A revenue village is also defined herein and it means: “any local area which is recognised as a village in the revenue accounts of the Government after excluding therefrom certain areas specified in the definition.” Similar definitions are found in Madras Act XXXV of 1958. Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1950 empowers the Inspector to declare every local area comprising revenue village or villages or any portion or portions thereof, to be a village for the purpose of this Act and specify the name of such village. This provision is really in two parts. There could be a local area comprising a revenue village or villages which can be declared to be a village for the purposes of this Act; or there can be a local area or any portion of such local area which can be declared to be a village for the purposes of this Act. The latter part of the provision accordingly envisages even local areas where there are no revenue villages to be declared to be a village for the purposes of this Act. Therefore, the argument that only revenue villages are contemplated to be taken into a local area for the purpose of constitution of a Panchayat is not supported by the wording employed in section 3(1) of the Act. Mr. Vedantachari argues that having regard to the intendment of the Act, as indicated by the Title and the Preamble, the contention that only revenue villages can be formed into Panchayats is supported thereby. Mr. Vedantachari argues that having regard to the intendment of the Act, as indicated by the Title and the Preamble, the contention that only revenue villages can be formed into Panchayats is supported thereby. While undoubtedly the Preamble and the Long Title to the Act can afford indications in order to appreciate the scope of any discretion conferred upon any authority by any particular provision in the Act, in this case, I am unable to agree that the Preamble discloses that only revenue villages can be formed into Panchayats. Nor can such conclusion be reached on an examination of the course which legislation has pursued with regard to local administration. I am accordingly of the opinion that this contention also has to fail. I must emphasise that as stated in the counter-affidavit of the State of Madras, whatever rights the petitioners have with regard to the Jagirs are not attempted to be interfered with merely by the creation of the Panchayats. What those rights are cannot be settled in these writ proceedings. It is for the petitioners to establish the extent of their rights if, on any occasion, there should be any interference with such rights as they conceive to be theirs. But, at this stage, apart from the apprehension which the petitioners have that their rights may be interfered with, the action of the authority in notifying the local areas as Panchayats has neither directly nor indirectly interfered with those rights. But, on the question of the jurisdiction, there is no doubt that the authority had ample jurisdiction under section 3 of the Act to issue the notification. Both the petitions fail and are dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs. P.R.N. ------- Petitions dismissed.