Judgment :- 1. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 (Act, 17 of 1981), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is in issue in this Original Petition. 2. Certain lands were given as tax free inams for performance of Tantra Viruthi in the Sherthallai Bhagavathi Temple to the petitioner's family. These lands were given for the future performance of Tantra Viruthi in that temple from time immemorial. Ceremonies attached to Tantra Viruthi were and are being carried on by the male members of the family. The performance of the ceremonies by its very nature and immemorial use is stated to have become recognised as inseparable from the lands which were given as tax free inams. The religious practices known as Vara Vahana, Avastha Vahanaj Prathista, Jeeva Vahana, Sthoola Vahana and Stotra Vahana are obligatory religious practices attached to Sherthallai Bhagavathi Temple which are to be performed only by competent members of the petitioner's family. According to the petitioner eventhough the tenure of the property was stated in the settlement register as Sherthallai Devaswom Vaka Inam, the properties do not belong to the Devaswom. Being service inam lands the properties are in-alienable and hence respondents 4 to 21 who are having possession over parts of the said property are not entitled to claim any right as tenants. Their possession, if any, are terminable at the will of the petitioner's family. It is the petitioner's case that the service inam lands granted for Tantra Viruthi is inseparable and is inextricable connected with the service. Hence the lands cannot be divorced from the service for the purpose of ex-proprietary legislation like Act 17 of 1981. Hence, it is contended that the lands cannot be taken away from the ownership of the petitioner and his family by a legislation abolishing Tantra Viruthi. Abolition of that right, according to the petitioner, will be violative of Art.25 of the Constitution of India. As per the provision contained in S.4 of the Act. the right, title and interest of the land owner will vest with the Government. Those rights which are inextricably connected with the performance of Tantra Virutbi cannot vest in the Government. Nor can the duty to perform Tantra Virutbi vest in the Government. The Government cannot abolish the practice of Tantra Viruthi either. the right, title and interest of the land owner will vest with the Government. Those rights which are inextricably connected with the performance of Tantra Virutbi cannot vest in the Government. Nor can the duty to perform Tantra Virutbi vest in the Government. The Government cannot abolish the practice of Tantra Viruthi either. On these averments, it is contended that Act 17 of 1981 is a fraud on the Constitution of India and a colourable piece of legislation. 2. On behalf of the State a detailed counter affidavit has been filed. According to the counter affidavit Act 17 of 1981 was passed with a view to bring almost all the lands in the State in one classification or category and to bring down various categories of lands by abolishing tenures like Pandaravaka, Edavaka, Sreepadam. Service Inam etc. It is stated that Tantra Viruthi is an obligatory religious service which is being made by a particular family to the Sherthallai Bhagavathi Temple by virtue of having obtained possession over an extent of land in lieu of the service being done to the Temple. Tantra Viruthi is a category of service inam defined in S.2(f) of the Act. When the rights of the land owner vest in the Government and thereby obligation attached to the land to perform service stands abolished, it will not amount to stopping the ceremonies in the Temple. The Institution is free to engage anybody to perform the service as per the conditions stipulated at each time. S.7 of the Act provides for payment of compensation to the land. The rate of compensation fixed in the Act is very high when compared with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Act is intended to assign the land to the holders and to confer clear title on them. If the petitioner is at-present the land bolder in respect of Inam land be is to pay the purchase price for the land to be assigned in his favour. 3. In the case of a legislation there is always a presumption in favour of its constitutionality, The courts will presume that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed against problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds as stated in the decision in Municipal Corporation, Ahamedabad v. Jan Mohammad (AIR. 1986 SC. 1205). 1986 SC. 1205). It must be borne in mind that the Legislature is free to recognise degrees of barm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest and finally that inorder to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common rapport, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived to be existing at the time of legislation. It is for the party challenging its validity to show that there has been clear violation of the Constitutional principles. From the pleadings it appears that the main attack against the Act is on the ground that it violates the provisions of Art.25 of the Constitution of Indra. 4. Viruthi lands are Government lands given to families or individuals for performance of specified service in temples or other institutions. So long as the services were performed, the holders were allowed to continue in possession. Such lands were declared to be in-alienable and if any alienation is made, the Government was given power to resume such land for restoring it to the bolder or for other-wise disposing of it as the Government may think fit. The holders of Viruthi lands were merely tenants at will and the Government had absolute right of disposal over such lands. A portion of the lands given to the petitioner's family for conducting Tantra Viruthi was acquired by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Disputes arose in relation to that acquisition and if came up for decision before a Full Bench of the erstwhile Travancore High Court in Narayanan Narayanan Namburipad v. Matha Varkey and another (1926 VOL. XVI, TLJ, 44). The court held that the holder of a Tantra Viruthi is not a full owner and that the very nature of the service expected of a Tantri militates against the view that Tantra Viruthi land is transferable at the holder's option. It was further held that Tantra Viruthi properties have never been dealt with on the footing that they have not been burdened with services. It was further held that Tantra Viruthi properties have never been dealt with on the footing that they have not been burdened with services. Finally the court observed: "xxx xxx we hold that 'Tantri Viruthi is a form of Service Inam tenure and that the disputed property is held by the appellant's family, not in consideration of past services performed by his ancestors, but in consideration of future services to be performed by competent members of the family". Thus, it is seen that the petitioner and members of his family were holding the property for rendering future services in the Sherthallai Bhagavathi Temple. According to the petitioner the land cannot be separated from the obligatory religious service, viz, Tantra Viruthi 5. The members of the petitioner's family were entrusted with the duty of performing the religious ceremones in the Sherthallai Bhagavathi Temple. For that they were and are to be paid. Instead of effecting the payments as and when the ceremonies were conducted, they were given certain lands as tax-free inams for the performance of Tanra Viruthi The idea was that the income from the properties was to be appropriated towards the fee due to the petitioner for performing the ceremonies. Thus, the grant of land was for the future performance of the ceremonies. The petitioner or his family was not in possession of the entire land for their own enjoyment. Respondents 4 to 21 were put in possession of various portions of the land with liability to. pay rent or pattom to the petitioner. The petitioner resorted to that mode of enjoyment of the property instead of holding it for himself by enjoying the same. This aspect I emphasise to show that the conduct of Tantra Viruthi in the temple was in no way connected with the land. In other words, the mode of enjoyment of the property by leasing it out to strangers clearly establishes the fact that no particular land forming part of Tantra Viruthi Inam land, was required to be possessed by the petitioner for performance of the ceremonies in the Temple. 6. In other words, the mode of enjoyment of the property by leasing it out to strangers clearly establishes the fact that no particular land forming part of Tantra Viruthi Inam land, was required to be possessed by the petitioner for performance of the ceremonies in the Temple. 6. "Landholder" has been defined in S.2(c) of the Act in the following manner: Landholder" means a person holding Service Inam Land." Explanation "Where any service inam land is in the possession of a person, other than the person to whom the land was granted for performing services or any of his successors-in-interest, the person in possession of the land shall be deemed to be the land-holder for the purpose of this Act." Clause (d) of S.2 defines "Landowner" as the owner of Service Inam lands. In the instant case the land was granted to the petitioner and his family for performing service in the Temple. The land so given belongs to the Devaswom. The petitioner and members of his family became holders of that land by grant, for performing the services. Portions of that land were given to respondents 4 to 21. Thus, the petitioner, members of his family and respondents 4 to 21 became the land holders in-respect of the land originally given to the petitioner's family. Respondents 4 to 21 were not having any obligation to perform any service in the Temple. The land holders had no manner of right over the land except the right to enjoy them so-long as the services are rendered. The land holders have no right to alienate the land or otherwise encumber the same in any manner. If any of the said conditions is violated the land is liable to be resumed. On such resumption the Government could restore it to the holder for the due performance of the service. The Government, in the above circumstance, thought it fit to enfranchise these lands and confer full proprietary rights on the holders, consequently they wanted to abolish the liability of the land holder to render services which were attached to the land. In doing so, compensation was awarded to the land owner, viz., Devaswom. With that amount the Devaswom is to arrange for the future conduct of the ceremonies in the temple. 7. As stated earlier, the petitioner can only be considered as a land bolder. In doing so, compensation was awarded to the land owner, viz., Devaswom. With that amount the Devaswom is to arrange for the future conduct of the ceremonies in the temple. 7. As stated earlier, the petitioner can only be considered as a land bolder. He has put respondents 4 to 21 in possession of portions of the land held on Tantra Viruthi. Thus, the petitioner, members of his family and respondents 4 to 21 satisfy the definition of 'land holder' in the Act. The owner of the land is the Devaswom, under S.4 of the Act the Government are to pay an amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 1200/-per acre of the Inam land to the land owner for the land owner to see that the services which were attached to the lands are performed in future without default. 8. By clause (1) of S 3, all right, title and interest of the landowners in Service Inam lands held by land holders became vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. Consequent on that vesting the liability of the land holders to render services attached to the land are abolished by clause (2) of S.3. S.4 provides that in consideration of the vesting of the land in Government, the land owner is to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per acre. The land holders who are in possession of the land, u/S. 5, are entitled to get assignment of the right, title and interest over such lands. Thus, as per the scheme of the Act, the property that was entrusted with persons for rendering future services became vested in the Government. The liabilities which were cast upon those land holders to perform the services were abolished. Persons who were in actual possession of the properties are entitled to get those lands assigned from the Government. As a consequence of the vesting of the land on Government, the land owners, viz., Devaswom, are paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per acre. With that money or the interest from that money the Devaswom is to get the ceremonies performed in future. Can this be considered as one infringing the fundamental rights under Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution as contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner? 9. 1200/- per acre. With that money or the interest from that money the Devaswom is to get the ceremonies performed in future. Can this be considered as one infringing the fundamental rights under Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution as contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner? 9. Art.25 of the Constitution secures to every person, subject to public order, health and morality, the freedom not only to entertain such religious belief and conscience but also to exhibit bis belief in such outward acts as be thinks proper and to propagate or decimate his ideas for edification of others. (Vide Commr. H.R.E v. L.T. Swamiar (AIR 1954 SC 282). The rights under Art.25 of the Constitution is made subject to other provisions of Part-III of the Constitution as well. While Art.25 confers the particular rights of all persons, Art.26 is confined to the religious denominations or any section thereof. Art.26 guarantees inter alia the right to own and acquire movable and immovable properties for managing religious affairs. The petitioner has no case the impugned legislation has in any way gone to affect the rights of any religious denominations or any section thereof to acquire movable and immovable properties for managing the religious affairs or of their right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Nor can it be said that the impugned Act has in any manner interfered with the freedom of any person to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. The conduct of Tantra Viruthi in the temple is not also interfered with. The Devaswom is to arrange for the conduct of those ceremonies by utilising the compensation they get under the Act. The Devaswom's right to have those ceremonies conducted is not at all affected. In the above circumstances, I fail to see any infringement of the rights guaranteed under Art.25 or 26 of the Constitution. 10. As stated earlier, the impugned legislation has not in any way gone to affect the conduct of Tantra Viruthi in the Sherthallai Bhagavathi Temple. It is worthwhile to note that no item of Tantra Viruthi land is specifically required for the performance of the ceremonies in the Temple either. These lands were given to the petitioner and his family for due performance of the ceremonies in future. They were to appropriate the income from the properties for the services to be rendered by them. It is worthwhile to note that no item of Tantra Viruthi land is specifically required for the performance of the ceremonies in the Temple either. These lands were given to the petitioner and his family for due performance of the ceremonies in future. They were to appropriate the income from the properties for the services to be rendered by them. Instead of that property, now money is made available with the Devaswom, for the Devaswom to pay for the ceremonies. Viewed in this manner, the legislation is not ultravires the provisions contained in the Constitution. It is neither a fraud on the Constitution nor a colourable legislation as contended by the petitioner. In view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in this Original Petition. It is accordingly dismissed.