JUDGMENT Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. The appeal is by the 5th Respondent (now represented by his legal representatives) in O. P. No. 2268 of 1972 against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court, who allowed the writ Petition and quashed Exts. P-1 to P-3 orders for eviction of the Petitioners, and declare that the authorities have a duty to do whatever was necessary to restore the status quo prior to the filing of the writ Petition. The 5th Respondent's tarwad had been granted viruthy in respect of about 29 cents of land in Sy. No. 5670 of Karunagappally village. Patta No. 23 was granted to the tarwad. It is well settled by judicial decisions that viruthy is a service tenure liable to be resumed if alienated and that the alienee gets no right by reason of his possession consequent on the transfer. This position was recognised and crystallised by the Viruthy Proclamation of 1061 M.E. Section 8 of the Proclamation reads: "No viruthicar shall be at liberty to alienate by sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise, the Inam given to him for the viruthy service. All such alienations shall be null and void and the Government shall have the power of resuming any such alienated viruthy inam and restoring it to the holder or otherwise disposing of it as to them may deem fit. No action shall lie respecting any such land in any court of law." For the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Proclamation, the Viruthy Rules of 1074 M.E. were passed: Rule 3 of the said Rules provides: "A viruthy holder has no rights over his viruthy holding except its enjoyment during the regular performance of the services imposed on him; and he shall not sell, mortgage, transfer or encumber the property in any manner. No right acquired over any viruthy property, without the sanction of Government, will be recognised." The viruthi holder, namely the 5th Respondent's tarwad transferred 22 cents of viruthi lands to one Velayudhan Nair, the karnavan of the Petitioners' tarwad. In 1101, in a partition in that tarwad, the 22 cents of viruthi lands were partitioned; 10 cents being allotted to the first Petitioner and 12 cents to the second Petitioner. A transfer of patta was also effected in 1112, of the entire property in the name of the 5th Respondent. In 1101, in a partition in that tarwad, the 22 cents of viruthi lands were partitioned; 10 cents being allotted to the first Petitioner and 12 cents to the second Petitioner. A transfer of patta was also effected in 1112, of the entire property in the name of the 5th Respondent. The transfer of the viruthi lands to the Petitioners' tarwad was prior to 1045 M.E. 2. On the above facts, proceedings were taken under the Land Conservancy Act for eviction of the Petitioners. Exts. P-1 to P-3 are the orders passed by the Tahsildar, the Collector on appeal, and the Board of Revenue on further revision. These orders recognised the liability for eviction of the Petitioners under the Land Conservancy Act and directed their eviction. 3. The contention urged by the Petitioner's counsel was that the 1061 Proclamation did not provide for any machinery for eviction of the Petitioners; and therefore, resort to the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act was unjustified and unsustainable. It was further argued that Ext. P-1 was not a speaking order, and Exts. P-2 and P-3 which affirmed the same were no better. These contentions found favour with the learned Judge. 4. Counsel for the Respondents very fairly and properly invited our attention to Section 8 of the Viruthi Proclamation of 1061, and to the Rules of 1074, and, in particular, Rule 3 thereof. Section 8 of the Proclamation declares that all alienations of viruthi lands shall be void and recognises the Government's power to resume the alienated viruthi land and restore it to the holder or, otherwise dispose of it in such way as they deem fit. This is sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act. There is a blanket provision in Section 8 conferring protection on the Government against action taken in respect of such land in any court of law. Rule 3 of 1074 viruthi Rules only further amplifies the position. We do not think we should expatiate further on it. We are no scope for any complaint that the machinery for dealing with the transferees of viruthi lands has not been indicated by the terms of the Proclamation or the Rules. 5. Our attention was called to the Rules defining the conditions of viruthi service, and the duties of viruthi holders, viz., R. Dis. No. 1596/45/Rev, dated the 19th July 1945. 5. Our attention was called to the Rules defining the conditions of viruthi service, and the duties of viruthi holders, viz., R. Dis. No. 1596/45/Rev, dated the 19th July 1945. Rules 9 and 10 of the said Rules may be noted. Rule 9 corresponds to Rule 10 of the 1074 Rules. The first part of Rule 10 provides for what has, in substance, been embodied in Rule 11 of the 1074 Rules. The latter part of Rule 10 was stressed, as providing the machinery for dealing with transferee of the viruthi land, and as supplying the omission in the 1074 Rules. It appears to us that the 1945 Rules merely made explicit what was sufficiently implicit in the terms of Section 8 of the 1061 Proclamation. We are not persuaded by the argument that in the absence of this provision introduced by Rule 10 of 1945 there is no right or power on the Government to resort to the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and that, therefore, the impugned orders, Exts. P-1 to P-3 must fall. 6. Counsel had a further argument that the latter part of Rule 10 of the 1945 Rules was clarificatory or, in any event, procedural; and, in either case being retrospective, would have application to the case on hand. We do not see much force in the contention that the relevant part of the Rule is declaratory or clarificatory in nature. We have also some difficulty in appreciating or accepting the argument that the provision is procedural in character and not substantive in nature. In the view that we take, we think it unnecessary to express any opinion on this aspect of the case. On our analysis, we cannot share the learned Judge's view that on the provisions of the Proclamation of 1061 and the Rules of 1074 there is no scope to invoke the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act. 7. Complaint was made that the impugned order, Ext. P-1, is not a speaking order and is devoid of reasons. The order has set out in the preambulary part of it the full facts and history of the case. Once it is seen that the persons proceeded against are transferees of viruthi lands and that the land are Government lands, resort to the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and a direction for eviction under the said provisions was justified. The order has set out in the preambulary part of it the full facts and history of the case. Once it is seen that the persons proceeded against are transferees of viruthi lands and that the land are Government lands, resort to the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and a direction for eviction under the said provisions was justified. We see no ground for invalidating them on the ground that they were not speaking orders. 8. Counsel for the Respondents stressed that they have been in occupation for a century and more. On the law as we have understood and expounded, that gives them no right which we are recognise and protect against the action impugned. We allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Judge and direct that O P. No. 2268 of 1972 will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.