JUDGMENT : K. Surendra Mohan, J. This is an appeal preferred by respondents 6 and 7 in O.P. No.1417 of 1998 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.3.2009 allowing the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed by one Sri. P. Krishnan Nair of Attara Veedu seeking a declaration that the provisions of Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 20 of 1971’ for short) have no application to the land comprised in Sy.No.2746/2 of Chengazhassery Village. He also sought for the issue of appropriate writs quashing Exts.P4, P6 and P7 orders that were passed under the provisions of the said Act by the Special Tahsildar, the District Collector, and the Board of Revenue respectively, directing the issue of patta in respect of an extent of 54 cents of land comprised in the survey number mentioned above to the appellants herein and respondents 9 to14 who are the legal heirs of one Subbaiah, who is no more. Sri. P. Krishnan Nair also died during the pendency of the proceedings and respondents 1 to 4 are his legal heirs. Respondents 9 to 14 are the other legal hers of late Subbiah mentioned above and children of his daughters, claiming under him. 2. Sri. P. Krishnan Nair belonged to the Attara Veedu, a prominent family of the erstwhile Travancore State. As per family partition deed dated 20.1.1114 M.E. Corresponding to 5.9.1938, an extent of 65 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 2746/2 of Chengazhassery Village in Trivandrum Taluk was allotted to his share. The tenure of the land, according to him, is ‘Sree Pandaravaka Kudumbaporuthy’, as per the Revenue Registers. He placed reliance on Ext.P1, copy of the Chitta and Ext.P2, copy of the Classification Register of the land and Ext.P5, copy of the Settlement Register. At the time of the partition mentioned above, late Sri. P. Krishnan Nair was a minor. On 19.11.1947, an extent of 54 cents out of the property allotted to Sri. P. Krishnan Nair, as stated above, was leased in favour of one Chokkalingam Pillai as per a registered deed for the purpose of putting up a Cinema theatre. The lease deed contained a provision permitting him to transfer the lease also. Pursuant to the lease, he put up a cinema theatre in the property by name, Central Theatre. 3. P. Krishnan Nair, as stated above, was leased in favour of one Chokkalingam Pillai as per a registered deed for the purpose of putting up a Cinema theatre. The lease deed contained a provision permitting him to transfer the lease also. Pursuant to the lease, he put up a cinema theatre in the property by name, Central Theatre. 3. Subsequently, on 16.5.1952 by another registered deed Sri. Chokkalingam Pillai sold his rights over the structures and the leasehold to one Subbaiah. Subbaiah is the predecessor in interest of the appellants and respondents 9 to 14. He atorned to Sri. P. Krishnan Nair and was paying rent to him. The rent was also enhanced subsequently. 4. In the above circumstances, late P. Krishnan Nair filed O.S.No.175 of 1973 before the Sub Court, Trivandrum for recovery of the property occupied by late Subbaiah. The suit was decreed. However, A.S.No.5 of 1978 filed by the legal representatives of late Subbaiah was allowed by this Court. As per the said judgment reported in 1984 KLT 371 , the suit was remanded for being disposed of afresh after making a reference to the Land Tribunal under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (‘Land Reforms Act’ for short). This Court found that the claim for the benefit of S.106 raised in the suit was required to be decided on a reference to the Land Tribunal as mandated by S.125(3) of the Land Reforms Act. After remand, a reference was made to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal in R.C.No.34 of 1989 found that the transaction between the parties was a commercial lease entitled to the protection of S.106 of the Land Reforms Act. The Sub Court on receipt of the findings of the Land Tribunal, dismissed the suit holding that the legal representatives of late Subbaiah were protected against eviction by S.106 of the Land Reforms Act. The said judgment of the Sub Court, Trivandrum was the subject matter of challenge before this Court at the instance of late P. Krishnan Nair in A.S.No.648 of 1992. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court by a separate judgment dated 27.3.2009, the date on which the judgment against which this appeal is filed, was also delivered. 5. This Court has in the said judgment found that the transaction between the parties was a lease and not a licence as contended by late Sri. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court by a separate judgment dated 27.3.2009, the date on which the judgment against which this appeal is filed, was also delivered. 5. This Court has in the said judgment found that the transaction between the parties was a lease and not a licence as contended by late Sri. P. Krishnan Nair. Since the suit was filed describing the transaction as a licence, the same was held to be not maintainable. It is further held that, Sri. Chokkalingam Pillai being the original lessee, who had constructed the theatre, was the only person who could have claimed the protection of S.106 of the Land Reforms Act. Late Sri. Subbaiah, who is only a sub-lessee, who has not made any construction was held not entitled to the said benefit. It is further held that, in view of the judgment in the Writ Petition from which this appeal arises, respondents 1 to 4 herein and other legal representatives of late Subbaiah were not entitled to claim absolute rights over the property. Though Special Leave Petitions were filed against the judgment in A.S. No.648 of 1992 by the appellants and others, they were dismissed as withdrawn on 19.8.1996. Thus, the judgment in A.S. No.648 of 1992 has become final. 6. In the meanwhile, after the suit, O.S.No.175 of 1973 of the Sub Court, Trivandrum was remanded by this Court in 1984, late Sri. Krishnan Nair had approached the authorised officer under Act 20 of 1971 for the issue of a patta under S.9 of the Act in respect of the land, in his name. The said application was contested by the legal representatives of late Subbaiah. The authorised officer, (Special Tahsildar) considered the respective contentions and by Ext.P4 proceedings ordered that, as the person in possession of 54 cents of land, late Subbaiah was entitled to patta in respect of the said portion and that late Shri. P. Krishnan Nair was entitled to patta only in respect of the remaining 11 cents of land. Ext.P4 was challenged by late Shri. P. Krishnan Nair unsuccessfully before the District Collector, Trivandrum in appeal. As per Ext.P6 order, the District Collector upheld the order of the Special Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. Late Shri. P. Krishnan Nair made Ext.P6 the subject matter of a revision before the Board of Revenue under S.12 of Act 20 of 1971. Ext.P4 was challenged by late Shri. P. Krishnan Nair unsuccessfully before the District Collector, Trivandrum in appeal. As per Ext.P6 order, the District Collector upheld the order of the Special Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. Late Shri. P. Krishnan Nair made Ext.P6 the subject matter of a revision before the Board of Revenue under S.12 of Act 20 of 1971. The Board of Revenue also confirmed the orders Exts. P4 and P6 as per Ext.P7. It was challenging Exts.P4, P6 and P7 that late Sri. P. Krishnan Nair had filed O.P.No.1417 of 1998 before this Court. In the Writ Petition, he also sought for a declaration that the provisions of Act 20 of 1971 had no application to the land comprised in Sy.No.2746/2 of Chengazhassery Village. 7. The Writ Petition was contested by the respondents. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State refuting the claims of late Shri. P. Krishnan Nair. It was contended that the provisions of Act 20 of 1971 were applicable to all lands described as Sree Pandaravaka in the Revenue records. It excludes all tenures except Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu lands held on Kuthakapattom. Therefore, it was contended that the claim of the writ petitioner was unsustainable. Late Subbaiah was in possession of 54 cents of land by virtue of a registered document executed by the mother and grandmother of late Sri.P.Krishnan Nair acting as his guardian and therefore, he comes within the scope of S.4 of the Act. The rights, if any, that late Sri. P. Krishnan Nair had on the land in question had got extinguished by the coming into force of Act 20 of 1971. According to the State, Sree Padmanabha Kudumbaporuthy lands were included within the scope of S.4 of the Act. Since Kudumbaporuthy lands have not been excluded under the Act, the claim of late Sri. P. Krishnan Nair was only to be rejected. 8. On behalf of the legal representatives of Late Sri. P. Krishnan Nair, it was contended that there were a number of different tenures in the erstwhile Travancore out of which, lands owned by the State were either Pandaravaka or Sree Pandaravaka. Sree Pandaravaka lands were those belonged to the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. Such lands were in the possession of various persons under different tenures, with the liability to pay tax to the State, described as ‘Rajabhogam’. Sree Pandaravaka lands were those belonged to the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. Such lands were in the possession of various persons under different tenures, with the liability to pay tax to the State, described as ‘Rajabhogam’. The grants made by the Kingdom used to be called Inams and were given as reward either for some service rendered or for services to be rendered in the future. Such Inams included tenures like Adima, Anubhogam, Thiruvulam, Thiruvadayalam etc. Kudumbaporuthy is not a service Inam. According to the counsel, the duties attached to Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple had originally been allocated to various functionaries characterized as Madathil Pillamars. The temple lands were given to different Madoms. The Madathil Pillamars used to collect the Michavaram due to Devaswom on those lands. Such income used to be utilized for the poojas and other rituals to be performed in the temple. Later on, in the Revenue Settlement, all the properties that were classified under the names of the different Madoms were brought under one general designation as ‘Sree Pandaravaka’. The lands that were in the names of the family members, received as personal Inams were described as Kudumbaporuthy lands. It was contended that, such Kudumbaporuthy lands had been enfranchised under S.24 of the Revenue Settlement Proclamation of 1061. Accordingly, the holders of such lands obtained full proprietorship over them. In view of the above, it was contended that, such lands that constituted the personal and absolute properties of the holders were not made the subject matter of Act 20 of 1971. For the above reason, it was also contended that, the impugned proceedings Exts.P4, P6 and P7 were unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, the legal representatives of late Subbaiah who were respondents in the Writ Petition contended that, no complete enfranchisement had taken place in respect of Sree Pandaravaka lands as per the Revenue Settlement Proclamation of 1061. According to them, the tenure of a land does not depend on the description of the land in the Revenue records and Sree Pandaravaka Kudumbaporuthy lands are also covered by the provisions of Act 20 of 1971. It was contended that the lands described as Sree Pandaravaka are lands belonging to Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple and that the origin of the tenure dates back to antiquity. It was contended that, Kudumbaporuthy is a purely personal Inam and not a service Inam. It was contended that the lands described as Sree Pandaravaka are lands belonging to Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple and that the origin of the tenure dates back to antiquity. It was contended that, Kudumbaporuthy is a purely personal Inam and not a service Inam. It was pointed out that the administration of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple was originally in the hands of various functionaries called ‘Madathil Pillamars’. They were in charge of separate Madoms. Each Madom had its own lands and the income from the lands was being utilized for conducting poojas and other rituals in the temple. Later on, in the Revenue Settlement of 1061 such properties held by the different Madoms were brought under the general classification of Sree Pandaravaka. The lands held till then under different tenures like Tharisu, Thanath, Puramboke etc., were brought under the general classification of Sree Pandaravaka lands. Kudumbaporuthy referred to lands held by family members of the Madoms and were essentially Sree Pandaravaka lands. Reliance was placed on portions of the Travancore State Manual by Sri. P. Nagam Ayya, Diwan Peshkar, Travancore. Such lands were not fully enfranchised by the Revenue Settlement Proclamation of 1061. It was for the said reason that, Act 20 of 1971 was enacted, with the object of providing for enfranchisement of Sree Pandaravaka lands held by land owners and for vesting in the Government, the Pandaravaka Thanathu lands. It was considered necessary to extinguish the rights of the temple in such lands and to confer full proprietary rights on the land holders. Reliance was placed on the various provisions of Act 20 of 1971 to contend that the provisions thereof applied to the Kudumbaporuthy lands also. 10. According to the said respondents, in stark contrast to the position in the erstwhile Malabar area, the lands in Travancore State used to be registered in Sirkar in the names of the tenants or cultivators with the liability to pay tax only if he died heirless. In such cases, the property would escheat to the Government with the Michavaram or dues to the jenmi continuing as a charge on the property. In cases where the holder of a land died without leaving behind any successors, such lands would be allotted to other persons as Inams. 11. It was contended that there were two kinds of Inams, Personal Inams and Service Inams. In cases where the holder of a land died without leaving behind any successors, such lands would be allotted to other persons as Inams. 11. It was contended that there were two kinds of Inams, Personal Inams and Service Inams. Lands under the Service Inams are not disturbed so long as the services are rendered. The Personal Inams were granted as a reward for services rendered or as a mark of favour. Among the said categories also, there were lands that could be alienated and lands that could not be alienated. The lands that were prohibited from being transferred were left undisturbed as long as they remained in the family, but, upon transfer they would become subject to enhanced tax and used to be treated as otti tenure for the purpose of assessment. There were other tenures also with respect to which a Rajabhogam had to be paid. 12. On the basis of the above, it was contended that Act 20 of 1971 was applicable to Kudumbaporuthy lands also. Late Subbaiah being a person who comes within the definition of ‘land holder’ under S.2(f) of Act 20 of 1971 was entitled to the grant of patta in respect of 54 cents of land, as ordered by the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the impugned proceedings, Exts.P4, P6 and P7 are not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 13. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions, found that the Kudumbaporuthy lands occupied a different position among the tenures coming under Sree Pandaravaka lands that, such lands had been fully enfranchised long before the enactment of Act 20 of 1971 and that the holders of such lands had been granted full proprietorship over the lands held by them. The learned Single Judge has held that Act 20 of 1971 applies only to Sree Pandaravaka lands as defined by S.2(i) of the said enactment. Consequently, the provisions have been held to have no application to Kudumbaporuthy lands given for past services rendered. Such lands not registered in the name Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple were held to be outside the scope of the provisions of Act 20 of 1971. Accordingly, the Writ Petition has been allowed and the impugned orders Ext.P4, Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 have been set aside. This appeal is filed challenging the said judgment. 14. According to the Senior Counsel Sri. Such lands not registered in the name Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple were held to be outside the scope of the provisions of Act 20 of 1971. Accordingly, the Writ Petition has been allowed and the impugned orders Ext.P4, Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 have been set aside. This appeal is filed challenging the said judgment. 14. According to the Senior Counsel Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Single Judge has not properly comprehended the scope of the enfranchisement that had taken place prior to the coming into force of Act 20 of 1971. The learned Single Judge has committed an error in presuming that the Kudumbaporuthy lands were held under a different tenure, distinct and separate from the general classification of Sree Pandaravaka lands. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the land that is the subject matter of dispute in the present case was allotted to the share of late Sri. Krishnan Nair when he was a minor, under a family partition. The land had been leased to Sri. Chokkalingam Pillai in the year 1947. The land had been later transferred to late Subbaiah. Late Subbaiah attorned to Sri. Krishnan Nair, paid rent to him and later on agreed to an enhancement in the rent also. Thus, he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property all throughout. For the said reason, it is contended that he is a person answering the definition of ‘land holder’ in Section 2(f) of Act 20 of 1971. The definition of ‘Sree Pandaravaka land’ is relied upon to point out that the Kudumbaporuthy land is only a species of the said general tenure. 15. Our attention is drawn to the Revenue Settlement Proclamation of 1061 to contend that, no complete enfranchisement had taken place by virtue of the provisions thereof. Reference is made to the entries in the old Revenue records to point out that, Kudumbaporuthy had been mentioned therein along with the terminology, ‘Sree Pandaravaka’. Reference is made to Ext.P2 Chitta (Revenue records) to point out that there is mention of Sree Pandaravaka as the ‘Inam’ (category). Therefore, according to the counsel, there is sufficient indication available to justify a conclusion that the ‘Kudumbaporuthy’ lands had not been fully enfranchised by the Royal Proclamation of 1061 M.E. The service inams had continued to exist subject to the payment of 1/8th of Pattom as ‘Raja Bhogam’. Therefore, according to the counsel, there is sufficient indication available to justify a conclusion that the ‘Kudumbaporuthy’ lands had not been fully enfranchised by the Royal Proclamation of 1061 M.E. The service inams had continued to exist subject to the payment of 1/8th of Pattom as ‘Raja Bhogam’. It is further contended that, late Subbaiah had acquired leasehold rights in respect of the property. He was in possession and enjoyment of the property eversince. Therefore, he is a ‘land holder’ coming within the definition of the said expression contained in S.2(f) of Act 20 of 1971. Since the learned Single Judge had not taken note of the above crucial aspects, it is contended that the judgment appealed against requires to be interfered with in appeal. 16. The Government Pleader, who represents respondents 5 to 8 supports the contentions of the counsel for the appellants. According to the learned Government Pleader, it was late Krishnan Nair himself who had invoked the provisions of Act 20 of 1971. Late Subbaiah was the lessee in possession of the property. His possession was recognized and accepted by late Krishnan Nair throughout. Therefore, he was a person who came within the definition of ‘land holder’ under the Act. It was taking note of the above legal position that patta was granted to him in respect of the 54 cents of land in his possession. According to the learned Government Pleader, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the said judgment. 17. Per contra, Senior Counsel Sri. S. Sreekumar contends on behalf of the legal heirs of late Krishnan Nair that Exts.P4, P6 and P7 proceedings were unsustainable and have been rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the preamble of Act 20 of 1971 shows that the same was enacted for the enfranchisement of two categories of lands, namely, Sree Pandaravaka lands held by landholders and for vesting in the Government, certain ‘Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu lands’. For the provisions of the Act to have any application, it is necessary for the land to be Sree Pandaravaka land. The definition of the said expression contained in S.2(i) is referred to, to point out that only lands owned by Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple and registered in the Revenue records as Sree Pandaravaka would come within the scope of the enactment. The definition of the said expression contained in S.2(i) is referred to, to point out that only lands owned by Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple and registered in the Revenue records as Sree Pandaravaka would come within the scope of the enactment. The definition of ‘landholder’ makes the above position clear for the reason that ‘landholder’ is a person who holds Sree Pandaravaka land ‘directly’ under the Temple on pattom, otti etc. Late Subbaiah was not a person holding the land directly under the temple. Therefore, it is contended that the provisions of the Act have no application to the land in this case. 18. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the reason for excluding all other tenures not mentioned in Act 20 of 1971 is to be found in the Revenue Settlement Proclamation of 1061. As per S.24 thereof, all personal Inams were made freehold properties. Service Inams were to continue subject to payment of 1/8th pattom as Rajabhogam. Inams created for support to the family were personal Inams. Kudumbaporuthy is one such personal Inam. Ext.P2 Chitta describes the property as Kudumbaporuthy and the name of the registered holder is shown as Valliyamma. It is therefore contended that, enfranchisement took place as per the settlement of 1061 and late Krishnan Nair became the owner of the property. The land ceased to be Pandaravaka land. Therefore, the provisions of Act 20 of 1971 had no application to the said land. 19. Learned Senior Counsel places reliance on Ext.P5, proceedings of the Travancore Government to point out that Kudumbaporuthy was recognized as a separate land tenure, as far back in the year 928 ME. It is for the said reason that, no further enfranchisement of the said category of lands was contemplated by Act 20 of 1971. It is on an understanding of the above legal position that the learned Single Judge has interfered with Exts. P4, P6 and P7. Therefore, it is contended that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment appealed against. 20. In the nature of the contentions put forward before us, the question that arises for consideration is whether the Kudumbaporuthy lands were enfranchised by the Royal Proclamation of 1061 M.E. issued by the Maharaja of Travancore ? The contention of the learned Senior Counsel Sri. 20. In the nature of the contentions put forward before us, the question that arises for consideration is whether the Kudumbaporuthy lands were enfranchised by the Royal Proclamation of 1061 M.E. issued by the Maharaja of Travancore ? The contention of the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer is that, the process of enfranchisement of Sirkar lands was effected in stages, spread over a long period of time and that no complete enfranchisement had taken place. It is for the said reason that, Act 20 of 1971 was enacted. The final act of enfranchisement had therefore to be effected under the provisions of the said enactment. However, according to the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S.Sreekumar, the Kudumbaporuthy lands were enfranchised long prior to the coming into force of Act 20 of 1971 through the Royal Proclamation of the Maharaja of Travancore. 21. In support of the rival contentions, we have been taken through copies of the old Grandhavaris and Chittas (Revenue records) produced in this case to contend that, the description of Kudumbaporuthy lands qualified by the expression, ‘Sree Pandaravaka’ clearly showed that there was no complete enfranchisement earlier, as contended. We have also been taken through the relevant portions of the Travancore Manual authored by Sri. T.K. Velu Pillai as well as Sri. V. Nagam Aiya. We have considered the rival contentions anxiously. 22. We notice that, a new survey and settlement was undertaken in the erstwhile Travancore State for the purpose of putting in place a sound Revenue administration. Accordingly, it appears that a complete survey and reassessment of the entire State ‘embracing an accurate measurement, demarcation, mapping and valuation of properties of every description and a registration of titles, as the basis of a sound Revenue Administration’ was carried out. On the basis of such a statement a proclamation was issued by the Maharaja of Travancore on 14th Kumbhom 1061 corresponding to 24th February 1886. S.24 of the said Proclamation is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference. “24. All favourably assessed lands (excepting Devaswom, Brahmaswom, Madambimar and Erayali properties) such as Adima, Anubhogom, Tiruvilom, Thiruvadayalom, & c., partake of the same character, and may, for purposes of simplification, be classed under the head of Inams. These are of two classes, viz., Inams granted for the support of individuals or families, or Personal Inams, and Inams granted for the performance of specified services, or Service Inams. These are of two classes, viz., Inams granted for the support of individuals or families, or Personal Inams, and Inams granted for the performance of specified services, or Service Inams. The present recognized practice as regards these tenures is to abstain from all interference with Service grants, so long as the service for which they were granted continues to be maintained. As to Personal grants the right of the original grantee and his descendants to enjoy the Inam is fully admitted, but, when it is alienated by sale or otherwise, the Sirkar steps in and subjects the property to the process of Ottivilakkom which is repeated at every subsequent alienation. All Inams are charged only with Rajabhogom which, generally speaking, is the only payment made to Government on these tenures. As we have commanded that all Ottivilakkom should be abolished in the case of Otti tenures on account of its objectionable features, it is desirable that this should be done in the case of Inams also, and that this important class of properties, which is extensive, should be placed on a satisfactory footing advantageous alike to the holders and Government. And this will be best attained by freeing them altogether from Sirkar Interference of any kind, and leaving the holders at perfect liberty to deal with them as they like. We have accordingly commanded the following Rules to be laid down for the Settlement of Inams, and they will be given effect to by Our officers at the ensuing Settlement:- (1) All Inams granted for service of any description shall be left to be enjoyed without interference, so long as the service continues to be fulfilled, subject to the payment of one-eighth of the Pattom as Rajabhogom and any Michavarom which may be payable. When, from any cause, the service has ceased or shall cease to be performed, the Inam shall be resumed and assessed with Pattom. (2) All Personal Inams, found at the time of the Settlement to be in the enjoyment of the family of the original grantee, shall be exempt from all interference and continue to be so held, on payment of one-eighth of the Pattom as Rajabhogom plus any Michavarom with which they are already charged. (2) All Personal Inams, found at the time of the Settlement to be in the enjoyment of the family of the original grantee, shall be exempt from all interference and continue to be so held, on payment of one-eighth of the Pattom as Rajabhogom plus any Michavarom with which they are already charged. (3) All Personal Inams, found at the Settlement to be in the enjoyment of individuals or families other than the original grantee or his descendants, shall be charged with the payment of one-half of the Pattom assessment to Government, any Michavarom with which it is already charged in favour of any private individuals or institutions being payable as usual. (4) No Inam to be subject to Ottivilakkom hereafter. (5) A title deed to be granted to each holder at the time of Settlement, specifying the character of the Inam, whether Service or Personal, its extent and description, whether wet or garden, and particulars of the quit-rent with which it is chargeable under the above Rules. (6) After the Settlement of the Inams under the foregoing Rules, the holders shall be at liberty to mortgage, sell or transfer them in any manner at their will and discretion, subject only to the payment of the quit-rent fixed. (7) There shall be no further interference on the part of Government with these free-holds, except such as might be necessary for the punctual realization of the quit-rent payable.” (emphasis supplied) 23. It is clear from the above provision that, all favourably assessed lands were classified for the purpose of simplification under the heads of ‘Inams’. Such ‘Inams’ were divided into two - Inams granted for the support of individuals or families called personal Inams and Inams granted for the purpose of specified services called Service Inams. In the case of service Inams, there was to be no interference from the State as long as the service was being provided. However, in the case of personal Inams, the grantee and his descendants were permitted only to enjoy the property without the power of alienation. When the property was alienated, the State would step in and subject the property to a process of ‘Ottivilakkom’. However, as per Section 24 extracted above, the practice of Ottivilakkom was abolished. However, in the case of personal Inams, the grantee and his descendants were permitted only to enjoy the property without the power of alienation. When the property was alienated, the State would step in and subject the property to a process of ‘Ottivilakkom’. However, as per Section 24 extracted above, the practice of Ottivilakkom was abolished. All personal Inams were exempted from all interference by the State, with the only liability for the grantee to pay one eighth of the pattom as Rajabhogam. Provision for the issue of title deeds is also incorporated. Thus, it is clear from the above provision that all personal Inams were freed from Government interference as per the Royal Proclamation of 1061 itself. 24. According to the Senior Counsel Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, no complete enfranchisement had taken place under the Royal Proclamation of 1061 for the reason that, the Grandhavaris and Chittas produced in this case describe the land as Sreepandaravaka Kudumbaporuthy. Sree Pandaravaka Kudumbaporuthy was an expression used to denote lands that belonged to Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the description of the land in the Revenue records is a clear indication that no complete enfranchisement of the property had taken place inspite of the Royal Proclamation of 1061. However, we are not willing to accept the said contention. Absolutely no material or evidence is available before us to warrant any such conclusion in the face of the clear provision in S.24 of the Royal Proclamation of 1061, already extracted above. The description of the property in the Revenue records could be attributed to the practice of describing such lands in the said manner, prevalent at that time. It could even have been the result of an error committed by the person who had actually made the entries. In the face of the clear provision in the Royal Proclamation extracted above, we are not satisfied that any inference as contended by the learned Senior Counsel should be drawn. Therefore, the said contention is rejected. 25. It is no doubt true that, Sree Pandaravaka lands are lands belonging to Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. The properties were originally in the possession of Madathil Pillamars, who paid Michavaram to the temple. The lands were subsequently resumed and given to the Ryots directly by the Government. Therefore, the said contention is rejected. 25. It is no doubt true that, Sree Pandaravaka lands are lands belonging to Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. The properties were originally in the possession of Madathil Pillamars, who paid Michavaram to the temple. The lands were subsequently resumed and given to the Ryots directly by the Government. Out of the said properties, some were given to persons who were attached to or connected with the temple as Anubhogam. In addition, there were service Inam lands belonging to the temple which were also known as Sree Pandaravaka. The service Inams were granted to dignitories of the temple for services to be rendered. Such lands included those given for past services rendered also. Though the properties were not alienable, many of the properties were alienated in violation of the said conditions. Ultimately, on 31.7.1935 the Mathilakom Service Inam Lands Proclamation, 1110 M.E. was issued. The said proclamation was intended to abolish certain Pandaravaka Inam lands. As per the said proclamation, Mathilakam Service Inam land was defined as Sree Pandaravaka lands granted as Inams for the due performance of the services in the temple, but shall not include any land granted as Inam for past services. The said proclamation provided that it shall be competent for the Government to declare the Mathilakom Service Inam lands enfranchised and permit them to be registered on Sree Pandaravaka Pattom tenure. In spite of the above proclamation there appears to have been persistent doubts regarding the real tenure of such lands that originally belonged to Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. The possession of the lands alienated in violation of the conditions subject to which the Inams were granted, caused problems. Many civil suits were filed against the Government where the fate of the lands alienated in violation of the terms of the Inams arose for consideration. The Head Sirkar Vakil opined that since there were several cases of similar nature, it was necessary to depute an experienced officer to investigate the question in all its aspects. Accordingly, on the orders of the Maharaja of Travancore a study was conducted, reports were submitted to the Maharaja. On the basis of the reports, Ext.P5 proceedings were issued by the Chief Secretary to Government on 17.12.1934. The nature of the grants in Kudumbaporuthy was also the subject matter of the said proceedings. 26. Accordingly, on the orders of the Maharaja of Travancore a study was conducted, reports were submitted to the Maharaja. On the basis of the reports, Ext.P5 proceedings were issued by the Chief Secretary to Government on 17.12.1934. The nature of the grants in Kudumbaporuthy was also the subject matter of the said proceedings. 26. It was claimed by the persons in possession of the lands that, such lands were granted in the names of the female members of the family, for the maintenance of the members thereof, without any service being attached to such lands. It has been found in Ext.P5 that the grants made as Kudumbaporuthy were not intended for future service, but were meant to be family grants for the maintenance of its members, in consideration of the services rendered or meritorious conduct in the past. It has therefore been held that, the same was not a service Inam as consideration for future services to be rendered, but were purely personal Inams. It has been noticed in Ext.P5 that, the ‘term Kudumbaporuthy was, owing to some confusion of thought, wrongly used in some official communications also to note all varieties of Inams in general’. The above statement sufficiently explains the erroneous description of the property as Kudumbaporuthy in the Chittas on which reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer. Paragraph 5 of Ext.P5 relevant in the above context is reproduced below: “5. In the above circumstances, Government consider that no interference by them or by the Sri Pandaravaka is justifiable whether these Kudumbaporuthi lands are alienated by the holders thereof. These lands are not also resumable when the members of the Madathil Pillamars’ family make default in rendering the service now attended to by them in the Mathilakom.” Ext.P5 concludes with a request to the Head Sirkar Vakkil to confess judgments in all the pending suits. It is clear from Ext.P5 that, the State had not reserved any right to itself in respect of the lands that formed the subject matter thereof, after the said proceedings. A perusal of the appendix to Ext. P5 shows that the lands of Attara family are referred to therein and the holder of patta is described as Valliyamma Pillai of Attara Veedu. It is from the said person that late Sri. Krishnan Nair traces his title. A perusal of the appendix to Ext. P5 shows that the lands of Attara family are referred to therein and the holder of patta is described as Valliyamma Pillai of Attara Veedu. It is from the said person that late Sri. Krishnan Nair traces his title. Since the Kudumbaporuthy lands had been enfranchised long before the coming into force of Act 20 of 1971, the provisions thereof cannot and does not have any application to such lands. 27. Apart from the above, it is clear from an examination of the provisions of Act 20 of 1971 that the provisions thereof were not meant to have any application to such lands. The preamble to the enactment declares that the Act was intended to provide for the enfranchisement of Sree Pandaravaka lands held by the landholders and for vesting in the Government of certain Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu lands. Thus, the Act was intended to apply only to two categories of lands, namely; (i) Sree Pandaravaka lands held by landholders and (ii) Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu lands. Sree Pandaravaka land is defined in S.2(i) as follows: “2(i). “Sree Pandaravaka land” means any land owned by the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple and registered in the revenue records as “Sree Pandaravaka”.” Section 2(j) defines Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu land as follows: “2(j). “Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu land” means land registered as “Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu” in the revenue records and includes such lands held on kuthakapattam.” Section 2(f) defines land holder as follows: “2(f). “landholder” means a person who holds Sree Pandaravaka land directly under the Temple on Pattom, Otti, Jenmom, Kudijenmom or Danam or under any other tenure by whatever name called, and includes his heirs, legal representatives and assigns but not include a person who holds Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu lands on Kuthakapattom.” As per the above definition, Sree Pandaravaka land is any land held by Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. The Kudumbaporuthy lands having been enfranchised much prior to the coming into force of the enactment, cannot be said to be land owned by Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. The said lands do not answer the definition in S.2(j) also. Going by the definition in S.2(f), the landholder is a person who holds Pandaravaka lands directly under the Temple. Late Subbaiah was not a person holding land directly under the temple and therefore he was not a landholder as contemplated by the above definition. The said lands do not answer the definition in S.2(j) also. Going by the definition in S.2(f), the landholder is a person who holds Pandaravaka lands directly under the Temple. Late Subbaiah was not a person holding land directly under the temple and therefore he was not a landholder as contemplated by the above definition. The result therefore is that, late Subbaiah to whom a patta was issued under the enactment would not come within the scope of the definition referred to above. S.3 provides for extinguishment of the rights of the temple. The said provision has no application to the Kudumbaporuthy lands that were already enfranchised. Though S.4 vests land holders with proprietary rights, since late Subbaiah does not answer the definition of the said expression, he was not entitled to claim any right under the Act. Therefore, grant of patta in respect of 54 cents of land to late Subbaiah was wrong. Consequently, Exts.P4, P6 and P7 orders were unsustainable. The learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the said proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the judgment appealed against or to set aside the same. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.