Supreme Court of India
JAYANTRAO AMRATRAO PRADHANversusPARTHASARTHY, COLLECTOR OF KAIRA DISTRICT AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 54
- Decided
- 1 April 1986
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A P SEN
Holding
The Collector was lawfully empowered under Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908 and the savings provision of Section 22 of the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, so the order of 21 March 1964 stands and the appeal fails.
Summary
The appellant claimed that lands granted to his ancestor as remuneration for patelship were service inam and not liable to resumption under the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 or the Resumption Rules, 1908. The Collector, invoking Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, classified part of the lands as service inam and ordered the remainder to be resumed, applying the Abolition Act with effect from 1 April 1963. The appellant challenged the Collector’s order, arguing that the original grant was of revenue, that lands received under Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act were not watan lands, that the Abolition Act had already abolished the watan rights, and that the pending proceedings were not saved by Section 22 of the Abolition Act. The Supreme Court held that the grant was of soil, that the lands were liable to resumption, that the lands received in lieu of acquisition were of the same class, and that the proceedings pending before 1 April 1963 fell within the savings provision of Section 22, thereby validating the Collector’s authority under Rule 4. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the original grant to Malharrao was a grant of soil or of revenue and its impact on liability to resumption.
- Whether lands granted in lieu of acquisition under Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act constitute patel watan and are subject to resumption.
- Whether the Collector’s order of 21 March 1964 was valid despite the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act coming into force on 1 April 1963.
- Whether the proceedings pending before the Collector on 1 April 1963 are saved by Section 22 of the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act.
- Whether the Collector had jurisdiction under Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908 to determine excessive remuneration and resume lands.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874s. section 4
- Bombay Rent Free Estates Act, 1852s. Rule 10, s. section 4
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. section 80
- Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961s. 2, s. 22, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. section 32
- Resumption Rules, 1908s. Rule 1, s. Rule 4
Subjects
Patel watanservice inamland resumptionGujarat Patel Watans Abolition ActRule 4 Resumption RulesSection 22 savingscollector jurisdictionland acquisitionhereditary office
Judgment
1
A
-- JAYANTRAO AMRATRAO PRADHAN
v.
PARTllASARTHY, COLIBCl'OR OF KAlRA
DISTRICT AND OIBERS.
APRIL 1, 1986 B
[A.P. SEN AND D.P. MADON, JJ.]
Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 - Section 22
and Resumption Rules 1908, Rule 4 - Service inam lands -
•Jurisdiction of Collector to determine title of land -
, Liability incurred under an incident of a patel watan prior to c
+- April 1, 1963 - Necessity for.
Much more than a century ago the appellant's ancestor
Malharrao was granted 74 acres and 10 gunthas of lands by the
Government, revenue assessment of which was Rs. 557, for
founding a village called Malharpura. He was also appointed D
1
Patel 1 of the newly founded village and in lieu of
re1111neration therefor the lands were exempted from land
revenue assessment. The annual re1111neration for 'patelship'
would have been only Rs. 67, but the entire land revenue
assessment was treated as the annual re1111neration of
-, }
'patelship' resulting in Malharrao annually receiving Rs. 490
more re1111neration in the shape of non-payment of land revenue
assessment.
E
,. In or about 1901 lands admeasuring 31 acres and 18
, gunthas were taken away by the Government from the lands
!< granted to Malharrao, without paying any compensation. The F
CoDlllissioner (N.D.) was directed to arrange a reasonable
settlement for transfer of the lands on such terms as the
patel was willing to accept. Proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 were initiated which resulted in the
Government granting certain lands to the 'patel'.
G
'1 3. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal sent a notice to the
appellant's father to show cause why the land held by him
should not be sold to the tenants as provided by the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The appellant
intimated the Collector that the lands held by him were a
service inam and the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act 1874 had H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A been applied to them as they were given to him as re1111neration
for services and, therefore, they were not liable to be
proceeded against under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act.
-
4. The Collector by his order dated March 21, 1964,
directed that plots of land admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas
B held by the app·ellant were to be considered as Service Inam
land and the remaining plots of lands were to be resumed and
entered in the name of the State Government under Rule 4 of
Resumption Rules, 1908. The lands which were held to be
Service Inam lands were to be dealt with under the Gujarat
c
Patel Watan Abolition Act, 1961, with effect from the April 1,
1963.
•
5. An appeal was filed against this order of the
Collector which was dismissed by the Special Secretary to the
State Government. The appellant challenged the orders of the
Collector and the Special Secretary under Article 226 of the
D Constitution, but the petition was dismissed.
..
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant
it was contended : (i) that the original grant was not a grant
of the soil but of the revenue of the land and, therefore, the
land was not liable to be resumed either under the Abolition
E Act or under the Resumption Rules 1908; (ii) that the lands
granted by the Government to the appellant's predecessor under
s. 32 of the Land Acquisition Act in lieu of the lands acquir-
ed could not be the subject-matter of watan and were, there- •
fore not liable to resumption; (iii) that as the Abolition Act ~
came into force on April 1, 1963, the watan rights in the JI
F lands stood abolished on and from that day and, therefore,
when the Collector passed his order dated March 21, 1964, the
land had ceased to be watan lands and no lands were available
for resumption and, therefore, no order under the Resumption '
Rules, 1908, could have been made on March 21, 1964 and (iv)
that, the proceedings pending before the Collector on April 1,
G 1963 were not of the nature mentioned in s. 22 of the Aboli-
tion Act and, therefore, they were not saved by the provisions
of that section.
Dismissing the appeal,
H
J.A. PRADHAN v. COLLECTOR 3
A
HEU> : 1. Two things which are saved by s. 22 of the
Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 are (i) an
obligation or liability already incurred under an incident of
a patel watan before the appointed day, that is, April 1, 1963
and (ii) a proceeding or remedy in respect of such obligation
or liability. [15 E-F] B
2. Under Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules 1908, the
Collector had the power to determine whether the re1D.1neration
for the performance of the service derived from the profits of
the enjoyment of patel watan land was unnecessarily high or
not and if it was unnecessarily high, to resume the whole or
., part of such land. [15 G; 16 A] c
3. The proceedings which were pending before the
Collector on April 1, 1963 were in respect of a liability
which had already been incurred under an incident of a patel
watan prior to April 1, 1963, this liability being that those
lands or a part thereof were not liable to be resumed inaslD.lch D
as the remuneration received by the patel in respect of the
• services performed by him was wholly disproportionate to the
,i_ remuneration actually payable for such services. The
proceedings before the Collector thus fell within the express
terms of s. 22 and under that section they could be continued
after the Abolition Act came into force as if the Abolition E
Act had not been passed. The Collector was, therefore,
entitled in law to continue those proceedings and to pass a
'y final order in such proceedings as he did by his impugned
order dated March 21, 1964. [16 D~]
1". 4. The grant made to Malharrao by the Government was a F
grant of soil and not of the revenue of the land and those
lands were, therefore, liable to resumption. [13 D]
..... 5. The lands which the appellant's predecessor got in
lieu of lands which were acquired by the Government were of
,. the same nature and clsss as the lands which had been G
']acquired. [14 D]
6. Under Rule 1 of the Resumption Rules 1908 the
Collector could at any time institute an enquiry into the
title by which any land held for service was enjoyed. The
jurisdiction of the Collector to determine the title to the H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A lands was invoked by the appellant's father, as a result of
which an enquiry was instituted by the Collector and notice
thereof was given to him. In the notice it was expressly
stated that the hearing would be about the classification of
patel lands and the steps to be taken according to Rule 4 of
the Resumption Rules, 1908. Even if the statement relating to
the steps to be taken according to Rule 4 was inserted later
B in the notice, the appellant's father and the appellant had
full knowledge of it and had enough opportunity to put forward
their case with respect to the proposed resumption of their
lands. [16 A-D]
c 1971.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1446 of •
From the Judgment and Order dated 4th October, 1971 of
the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A.No. 718 of 1964.
V.A. Bobde, A.G. Ratnaparkhi, S.D. Mudaliar and Miss
D Alamjeet Chauhan for the Appellant. ..
G.A. Shah, s.K. Sabharwal, c.v. Subba Rao and R.N. >-- .
Poddar for the Respondents.
E
The Judginent of the Court was delivered by
MADON, J. The Appellant was the holder of large plots
of land. By his order dated March 21, 1964, the Collector, y'
Kaira District, directed that plots of land admeasuring 6 •
-
acres and 28 gunthas were to be considered as Service Inam •(
land class vi(a) assigned for rellllneration in respect of
F Patel's service of village Malarpura, Taluka Matar, and the
remaining plots of lands were to be resumed and entered in
the name of the Government of Gujarat under Rule 4 of the
Resumption Rules, 1908, and steps for their disposal should be
taken separately by the competent authority. He further
ordered that the lands which were held to be Service lnam •
G lands should be dealt with under the Gujarat Patel Watans v
Abolition Act, 1961 (Gujarat Act No. XLVIII of 1961)
(hereinafter referred to as "the Abolition Act"), with effect
from April 1, 1963. Against the said order of the Collector,
the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of
H
J, A. PRADHAN v. COLLECTOR [MADON, J, ] 5
A
Revenue, Ahmedabad Division, but as the office of the
Commissioner was abolished, the said appeal was transferred to
and heard by the Special Secretary to the Government of
Gujarat, Revenue and Agricultural Department, Ahmedabad, who
dismissed it by his order dated August 4, 1964. Thereupon the
Appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the B
Constitution of India in the Gujarat High Court being Special
, CiviL Application No.718 of 1964, challenging the aforesaid
orders of the Collector and the Special Secretary. The said
writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the
Gujarat High Court by its judgment and order dated October 4,
1969. On an application made by the Appellant the High Court
granted a certificate of appeal under sub-clause (b) of clause c
-"' (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution, prior to the amendment
_, of the said clause by the Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment)
Act, 1972, certifying that the judgment and final order of
the High Court involved directly or indirectly a claim or
question respecting property of the value of not less than
twenty thousand rupees. D
.. In order to appreciate the points argued at the hearing
of this Appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts which led
to the passing of the impugned order of the Collector dated
March 21, 1964. Much more than a century ago, the Appellant's
ancestor, Malharrao Harinath, at the instance of the Govern- E
ment, founded a village called Malarpura and made fertile
several plots of land. The Government, therefore, granted to
the said Malaharrao lands bearing eighteen different survey
v numbers approximately admeasuring 74 acres and 10 gunthas of
which the land revenue assessment was Rs.557. The Government
also appointed the said Malharrao the 'patel' of the newly F
,,., founded village and in lieu of remuneration for the
'patelship' to which the said Malharrao would be entitled, the
said lands were made free of land revenue assessment. In
accordance with the terms of the Government Resolution No.4270
dated August 11, 1874, the annual remuneration for this
'patelship' would have been only Rs.67 but in the case of the G
said Malharrao the entire land revenue assessment was treated
•'! as the annual remuneration of Malharrao's 'patelship' with the
result that the said Malharrao annually received in the shape
of non-payment of land revenue assessment Rs. 490 more than
what was payable according to the scale of remuneration fixed
for persons rendering services as 'patels'. H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A
In or about 1901 certain lands admeasuring 31 acres and ~·-
18 gunthas were taken away by the Government from the lands
granted to the said Malharrao, without paying any .;
compensation, for the purpose of improving and enlarging the
irrigation tank in Village Goblaj. Ultimately, it was resolved
that the Commissioner (N.D.) should be requested to arrange a
B reasonable settlement for the transfer of the said lands to
the Government on terms which the 'patel' was willing to
accept and to report to the Government the amount of such '
compensation. Thereupon, proceedings were commenced under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the said lands.
Against the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer a --
reference was filed which was heard and decided by the Extra
c
Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, who directed the total ruoount
awarded as compensation to be invested in the manner provided
*
in section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act. Against the order *
of the Extra Assistant Judge, appeals were filed in the Bombay
High Court both by the claimant in the said reference and the
D Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court confirmed the order
of the Extra Assistant Judge with a slight modification. The
compensation was, however, not paid in cash but the Government
granted to the 'patel' certain lands in lieu of such ~
compensation. ·
1--· ~
E Prior to its abolition by the Abolition Act, 'patelship'
was an hereditary office. ''Hereditary Office" is defined by
section 4 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (Bombay .-
Act No. III of 1874) as follows :
"'Hereditary Office' means every office held
F heceditarily for the performance of duties
connected with the administration or collection of ~c
public revenue or with the village police, or with
the settlement of boundaries, or other matters of
civil administration. The expression includes such
office even where the services originally
G appertaining to it have ceased to be demanded.
The watan property, if any, and the hereditary Y,"
office and the rights and privileges attached to
them together constitute the watan."
H The same section 4 defines ''watan property" in the following
terms :
J.A. PRADHAN v. COLLECTOR [MADON, J,] 7
A
-l " 'watan property' means the moveable or i111DOvable
property held, acquired, or assigned for providing
relll.lneration for the performance of the duty
appertaining to an hereditary off ice. It includes
a right to levy customary fees or perquisites, in
money or in kind, whether at fixed times or
B
otherwise.
It includes cash payments in addition to the
original watan property made voluntarily by the
State Government and subject periodically to
modification or withdrawal."
c
* Claims against the Government on account of 'inams' and
other estates wholly or partially exempt from payment of land
~ revenue in certain territories in the Bombay Presidency were
excluded from the cognizance of ordinary civil courts, The
Bombay Rent-Free Estates Act, 1852 (Act No. XI of 1852), was
passed so that such claims could be determined,
D
Section 4 of the said Act provided as follows :
•
"4. Detend.nation of titles of claimants to
exeq>tion.-
E
In the adjudication of claims to exeqit lands or
interests therein, the titles of claimants shall be
determined by the rules in Schedule B annexed to
this Act."
Schedule B referred to in the said section 4 is headed "Rules F
f, for the Adjudication of Titles to Estates claimed as Inam or
exempt from payment of Land-Revenue."
, Under Rule 10 of Schedule B to the Bombay Rent-Free
.... Estates Act, 1852, the rules contained in the said Schedule
were not necessarily applicable to jagirs, saranjams or other G
tenures for service to the Crown or tenures of a political
nature, and the titles and continuance of such jagirs,
'"l saranjams and tenures were to be determined under such rules
as the Provincial Government may find it necessary to issue
from time to time. Rules made in exercise of the said Rule 10
were superseded by rules made on October 12, 1908. Under Rule
• H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986) 2 S.C.R.
A
1 of the 1908 Rules, an inquiry into the title by which any\-
land held for service was enjoyed could be instituted from
time to time by such officer as the Government may direct. The ~
only other relevant rule for our purpose is Rule 4 of the 1908
Rules which provides as follows :
B
"(4) Service lands which do not fall under No. 2
and No. 3 of these rules shall be continued subject
to the provision of the Bombay Act III of 1874, ~
and of any other law for the time being in force,
relating thereto, to the heirs to the present
holders or in the event of the same being any time -
lawfully alienated, to the heirs of the alienators
without restriction as to adoption or female or •
collateral succession but such land shall be
resumed in default of any heir in whom, in the '"
ordinary course of descent, the deceased holder's
private property would vest and shall not be liable
to be dealt with under the ordinary law for the
time being in force relating to intestate property.
Provided that if the Collector is at any time
satisfied that the service in respect of which any •
such lands are held is no longer performed or that
its performance is no longer necessary or that for (-
the service performed the remuneration derived from
the profits of the enjoyment of such lands is
unnecessarily high, or in the case of service lands ~
to which the provisions of Bombay Act III of 1874
did not apply, if it shall appear that the holder y
has been guilty of any serious offence or
' misconduct, or that such lands or any part thereof
or any of the profits thereof have or has by.'!
succession or otherwise, come into the possession
of a female or any person other than the person who
for the time being is duly authorised to perform
-,, and does actually perform the service in respect of ....
which such lands are held, the Collector may in his
discretion direct either (1) the resumption of such
lands or (2) the continuance of the same subject to ,..,'
such new conditions as he shall deem fit to impose
or (3) the resumption of portion of such land and
( the continuance of the rest thereof, subject to
such conditions as aforesaid."
J .A. PRADHAN v. COLLECTOR [MADON, J. ] 9
_J To continue with our narrative, the Agricultural Lands
A
Tribunal, Mehmedabad, sent a notice to the Appellant's father
"' which was received by him on July 1, 1960, to show cause why
the lands held by him should not b€ sold to the tenants as
provided by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948 (Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948). The Appellant thereafter B
by his application dated July 3, 1960, addressed to the
_\Collector, District Kaira, stated that the lands held by him
were a service inam and the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act had
been applied to them as they were given to him as re1111neration
- for services and, therefore, they were not liable to be
proceeded against under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
iLands Act. By the said application, the Appellant's father
requested the Collector Lo order the Memlatdar to give
c
*instruction to the Talati of various villages to enter in the
land records clearly the words "village servants useful to
Government" as also to issue directions to the Agricultural
Lands Tribunal not to send any intimation or notice to him for
selling any land of this nature. By his reply dated July 12, D
1960, the Collector intimated to the Appellant's father that
.., the matter was under consideration. Thereafter, the Collector,
District Kaira, sent a notice dated December 31, 1962, to the
~Appellant's father. The relevant part of the said notice is as
follows :
-
E
" Subject :- About the classification of Patlai
lands, Malarpura, taluka-Matar.
Sir,
-· It is intimated that you will remain present at
_, 12.00 noon on 2nd January 1963 with all evidence
and with whatever you have to say about the
determination of the amount of lands which you held
as Vatan Inam lands according to your statement
which lands are from the villages of Malarpura,
taluka Matar. G
(About the steps that are to be taken according to
the rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908),"
According to the Appellant, on January 2, 1961, a Chitnis by
the name of Desai took the said notice from the Appellant and
H
took it to the Collector and in the presence of the Collector
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
, [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A
added the words reproduced in brackets in the above extract. ~
The hearing before the Collector was adjourned from time to
time and ultimately, after hearing the advocate for the ~
Appellant, the Collector, District Kaira, passed the impugned
order dated March 21, 1964.
B It will be convenient at this stage to notice the
relevant provisions of the Abolition Act. The Abolition Act >-
received the assent of the President on November 24, 1961, and
it was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on December
6, 1961. The Abolition Act was brought into force on April 1,
c
1963. Under section 4 of the Abolition Act, patel watans were
abolished, the office of patel was made non-hereditary and ,
all watan lands were resumed and were to be subject to the ·
payment of land revenue under the provisions of the relevant,.
..
land revenue code and the rules made thereunder, as if such
lands were unalienated land. Under section 5, in the case of a
grant of watan land which is not a grant of soil and is held
D subject to a total or partial exemption from payment of land
revenue, the resumption is to be by levy of full assessment
and the holder is deemed to be an occupant of the land.
Certain definitions given in section 2 may also be noticed.
.
They are the definitions of the terms "existing watan law", '.>-
''hereditary patelship", and "Patel watan" given in clauses
E (6), (7) and (11) of the Abolition Act. These definitions are
as follows :
"(6) 'existing watan law' includes any enactment,
ordinance, rule, bye-law, regulation, ordery
notification or any other instrument, having the '·
F force of law relating to a patel watan and in force .
immediately before the appointed day; ·~
(7) 'hereditary patelship' means every village
office of a revenue or police patel held
hereditarily under the existing waten law for the
G performance of duties connected with the
administration or collection of the public revenue ,.
of a village or with the village police or with the,...
settlement of boundaries or other matters of civil ·
administration of a village and includes such
office .even where the services originally
H appertaining to it have ceased to be demanded;
J, A. PRADHAN v. COLLECTOR [MADON, J. ] 11
A
(11) 'Patel watan' means a watan held under the
existing watan law for the performance of duties
appertaining to the hereditary patelship, whether
any comnutation settlement in respect of such patel
watan has or has not been effected".
B
Section 3 of the Abolition Act provides as follows
"3, Powers of Collector to decide certain questions
and appeal.-
(1) If any question arises. -
(a) whether any land is watan land,
c
f (b) whether any person is a watandar, matadar or
representative watandar,
(c) whether any person is an unauthorised holder or D
authorised holder,
(d) whether any grant is a patel watan and if so
whether it is a grant of soil or grant of exemption
'• from payment of land revenue or a grant of land
revenue only, the Collector shall, after giving
the party -affected an opportunity to be heard and
E
-· after holding an inquiry, decide the question.
(2) Any person aggrieved by such decision may file
an appeal to the State Government within ninety
days of such decision. F
.(3) The decision of the Collector, subject to an
appeal under sub-section (2), and the decision of
the State Government in appeal under sub-section
(2) shall be final."
G
The Abolition Act also contains provisions for re-grant of
watan land either to the holder of the watan or to authorized
'i holders and it also provides that if any watan land has been
lawfully leased and such lease was subsisting on the date of
the coming into force of the Abolition Act, the provisions of
the tenancy law would apply to the said lea~e •. H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A
The first point urged at the hearing of this Appeal was~
that the original grant was not a grant of the soil but of
the revenue of the land and, therefore, the said lands were
not liable to be resumed either under· the Abolition Act or
ul\der the Resumption Rules, 1908. It is an admitted position
that neither the original grant nor its copy was traceable. In
B support of his submission, learned Counsel for the Appellant,
therefore, relied upon a letter dated July 12, 1912, from the
Under Secretary to the Government of Bombay, to the ;.
Commissioner (N.D.), written in connection with the
compensation to be allowed for the lands admeasuring 31 acres
and 18 gunthas taken by the Government for the improvement and ..._
c enlargement of the Goblaj tank, This was also the only piece •
of evidence relied upon by the Appellant before the Collector,-"-
the Special Secretary and the High Court. Far from supporting
the Appellant's case, the said letter negatives it. It inter __,_
alia states that "the whole of the land consisting of 18
survey numbers and measuring 74 acres 10 gunthas and
D originally assessed at Rs. 557 has been assigned to the Patel
of Malharpura, taluka Matar, for his renuneration". It is also
stated in the said letter that "Under the Government
Resolution No. 3969, dated 15th June, 1898, no cash ~
compensation is to be paid on account of land assigned for
village servants useful to Government". It is further stated t
E in the said letter as follows : f'
''Malharrao appears to have been given about 100 __
bighas of land for his enterprise in establishing a
new village and bringing waste land under --,-
cultivation, and this.land of the •• appears to have
F been converted subsequently into Patel's service ~
inam land under the then Collector Is vernaintar r'f'
order dated 5th August, 1842. This original order·
is not traceable but its substance is known from
the village inward and outward register of the
time. II
G
The said letter, therefore, clearly shows that it was not the
revenue of the said land which was assigned to Malharrao ~
but the land itself. Further, there are on the record .,--
categorical admissions made by the Appellant's father that
what was given to Malharrao was land and not the revenue of
H the land. In his said application dated July ·3, 1960, made to
J.A. PRADHAN v. COLLECTOR [MADON, J.] 13
-'\the Collector, ·District Kaira, the Appellant's father had A
stated that he was "holding lands of service inam". In the
said application he had further stated as follows :
...Besides, the Hereditary Offices Act has been
applied to lands 'village servants useful to B
Government' and those lands have been given to me
as ren:uneration for services."
The Appellant had . also given a statement which was.
reproduced in the said application. In the said statement it
was stated, "We are doing Mukhiship of village Malarpura,
taluka Matar (hereditary). We did not get any salary from the c
~reasury for this service but Government has given some lands
·for remmeration." During the pend ency of the proceedings
before the Collector, the Appellant's father had also given to
the State of Gujarat a notice dated March 11, 1963, under
section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In that
notice also it was stated, ~'In appreciation ·of the venturesome D
work of cy ancestor 74 acres and 10 gunthas of lands were
given to my said ancestor by the Government and that was as
Ina:n or gift". There is, therefore, no doubt. that the grant
made to Malharrao by the Government was a grant of soil and
not of the revenue of the land and the said lands were, there-
">'fore, liable to resumption~ E
The next point which was urged before this Court was that
the lands granted by the Government to the Appellant's
predecessor under section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act in
lieu of the lands acquired under the said Act could.not be the
'fubject-matter of watan and were, therefore, not liable to
.F
· ·resumption. This contention again is negatived by the express
admissions made by the Appellant and his father. In the said
application dated July 3, 1960, the Appellant had stated that
these lands were "of the same nature as the lands.acquired,
namely, village servants useful to Government". In the said
notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the G
.J:ase made out by the Appellant's father with respect to these
-1ands was as follows :
" Thereupon the additional compensation was
invested in Government bonds and the Government
bonds were kept in Government possession. As and H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.
A ('-
when the said lands were purchased, the vendors
were paid by selling bonds of required amount. I
had purchased from it Government fallow lands and
Government had taken prices from the said bonds of
mine.
B In that way I had purchased from Government nearly,r-
59 acres and 8 gunthas of land in village Goblaj,
Kajipura, Dedarda and Kaira. In all I had purchased
36 acres 12 gunthas of lands Malarpura, Kaira,
Dedarda, Samarda, Vas an· Khurd, Parsantaj, Naika,
Pansoli, Kanera, Antroli Punaj and Chanindra and
c Government converted the saiie into Inam service
land and therefore the lands purchased in this ~
· previous lands in my possession are of the same
class and all these lands are of my possession and
ownership."
n Thus, there can be no doubt · that the lands which the
Appellant's predecessor got in lieu of lands which were
acquired by the Government were of the same nature and
class as the lands which had been acquired.
The third point which was urged was that notice of the
E resumption proceedings was not given to the Appellant or hi~
father as required by law. This is again factually. incorrect.
The said notice dated December 31, 1962, clearly stated that
the presence of the Appellant's father was also required
"about the steps that are to be taken according to the rule 4
of the Resumption Rules, 1908." Assuming that the said words
F were added later in the letter by the Chitni~ in the presenef·
of the Collector on January 2, 1963, the proceedings before
the Collector were adjourned time and again, and, in fact,
when an application for adjournment was made before the
Collector by the Appellant's advocate on Junuary 31, 1963, the
purpose for which such adjournment was required was stated in
G the said application as being to·enable the advocate to obtain
information about the Resumption .Rules. It may be mentione'l,_
that this point was not even argued before the High Court.
Thus' there is no substance in this contention and it also
requires to be rejected.
H
J,A, PRADHAN v. COLLECTOR [MADON, J,) 15
A
The fourth and the last point which was urged was that as
the Abolition Act came into force on April 1, 1963, the watan
rights in the lands in question stood abolished on and from
that day and, therefore, when the Collector passed his
impugned order dated March 21, 1964, the said lands had ceased
to be watan lands and no lands were available for resumption B
and accordingly, therefore, no order under the Resumption
.~ Rules, 1908, could have been made on March 21, 1964. It was
further submitted that the proceedings pending before the
- Collector on April 1, 1963, were not of the nature mentioned
in section 22 of the Abolition Act and, therefore, they were
not saved by the provisions of the said section. There ls
~· equally no substance in this connection. Section 22 provides c
as follows
"22. Savings. -
Nothing contained in this Act shall affect -
D
(i) any obligations or liability already incurred
under ·an incident of a patel watan before the
appointed day, or
(ii) any proceedings or remedy l.n respect of such
obligation or liability, and any such proceeding E
may be continued or any such remedy may be enforced
as if this Act had not been pass'ed,"
'
Thus, there are two things which are saved by section 22,
'r
• namely, (i) an obligation or liability already incurred under
'L. an incident of a patel watan before the appointed day, that F
~ is, April 1, 1963, and (ii) a proceeding or remedy in respect
of such obligation or liability. Under Rule 4 of the
Resumption Rules, 1908, it was an incident of a patel watan
that if the Collector was at any time satisfied that the
rellllneration derived from the profits of the enjoyment of
watan lands was unnecessarily high, he might in his discretion G
+ either direct resumption of such lands or the continuance of
') the same subject to such new conditions as he might deem fit
to impose or the resumption of a portion of such lands and the
continuance,, of the rest subje~t to such conditions which he
might deem fit t<1 impose. Under the said Rule 4 the Collector
had the power to determine whether the rellllneration for the H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.
A performance of the service derived frooi the profits of the ~
enjoyment of patel watan land was unQecessarily high or not ,.
and if it was unnecessarily high, to resume the whole or part
of such land. Under Rule 1 of the Resumption Rules, 1908, the
Collector could at any time institute an inquiry into the
title by which any land held for service was enjoyed. The
jurisdiction of the Collector to determine the title to the
B
lands in question was, in fact, invoked by the Appellant's }.
father by his said application dated July 3, 1960. It was as a
result of the said application that the inquiry was instituted
by the Collector and notice thereof was given to the ..,.
Appellant's father by the Collector by the said letter dated
c
December 31, 1962. In the said letter, an express statement i
was made that the hearing would be about the classification
of patel lands at Malarpura and the steps to be taken "
according to Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908. Even if the
statement relating to the steps to be taken according to the
said Rule 4 was inserted later in the said notice dated
December 31, 1962, as shown earlier the Appellant's father and
D the Appellant had full knowledge of it and had enough
opportunity to put forward their case with respect to the ,.
proposed resumption of the said lands. 'The proceedings,
therefore, which were pending before the Collector on April 1, ~
1963, were in respect of a liability which had already been
incurred under an incident of a patel watan prior to April 1,
E 1963, this liability being that the said lands or a part
thereof were liable to be resumed inasllllch as the ~
re11Uneration received by the patel in respect of the services
performed by him was wholly disproportionate to the Y
rewneration actually payable for such service. The .4
proceedings before the Collector thus fell within the express .Ji,
F terms of the said section 22 and under that section they could II"'
be continued after the Abolition Act came into force as if the
Abolition Act had not been passed. The Collector was,
therefore, entitled in law to continue the said proceedings
and to pass a final order in such proceedings as he did by his
impugned order dated March 21, 1964.
For the reasons mentioned above, this Appeal llllSt fail \
and is accordingly dismissed with costs •
• • •
A.P.J. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Patel watan"Sign in to search