Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
JAYANTRAO AMRATRAO PRADHAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PARTHASARTHY, COLLECTOR OF KAIRA DISTRICT AND OTHERS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/04/1986
BENCH:
MADON, D.P.
BENCH:
MADON, D.P.
SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION:
1986 AIR 2153 1986 SCR (2) 1
1986 SCC (3) 507 JT 1986 333
1986 SCALE (1)644
ACT:
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 April 1, 1963 - Necessity for.
HEADNOTE:
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
’Patel’ of the newly founded village and in lieu of
remuneration therefor the lands were exempted from land
revenue assessment. The annual remuneration for ’patelship’
would have been only Rs. 67, but the entire land revenue
assessment was treated as the annual remuneration of
’patelship’ resulting in Malharrao annually receiving Rs.
490 more remuneration in the shape of non-payment of land
revenue assessment.
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
Commissioner (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’.
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
2
been applied to them as they were given to him as
remuneration 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
gunthas held by the appellant 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 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 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 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 acquired could not be the subject-
matter of watan and were, therefore not liable to
resumption; (iii) that as the Abolition Act came into force
on April 1, 1963, the watan rights in the 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, 1963 were not of the nature mentioned in s. 22 of the
Abolition Act and, therefore, they were not saved by the
provisions of that section.
Dismissing the appeal,
3
^
HELD : 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]
2. Under Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules 1908, the
Collector had the power to determine whether the
remuneration 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]
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
inasmuch as the remuneration received by the patel in
respect of the services performed by him was wholly
disproportionate to the 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 Act had not been passed. The
Collector was, therefore, entitled in law to continue those
proceedings and to pass a final order in such proceedings as
he did by his impugned order dated March 21, 1964. [16 D-G]
4. The grant made to Malharrao by the Government was a
grant of soil and not of the revenue of the land and those
lands were, therefore, liable to resumption. [13 D]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
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 class as the lands which had been
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
4
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 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]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1446 of
1971.
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
Alamjeet Chauhan for the Appellant.
G.A. Shah, S.K. Sabharwal, C.V. Subba Rao and R.N.
Poddar for the Respondents.
The Judgment 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,
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 remuneration in respect of
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 Inam
lands should be dealt with under the Gujarat Patel Watans
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
5
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
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 (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution, prior
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
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.
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 Government, 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 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 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 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’.
6
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 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 Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, who directed the total
amount 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 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.
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
hereditarily for the performance of duties
connected with the administration or collection of
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
appertaining to it have ceased to be demanded.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
The watan property, if any, and the hereditary
office and the rights and privileges attached to
them together constitute the watan."
The same section 4 defines "watan property" in the following
terms :
7
" ’watan property’ means the moveable or immovable
property held, acquired, or assigned for providing
remuneration for the performance of the duty
appertaining to an hereditary office. It includes
a right to levy customary fees or perquisites, in
money or in kind, whether at fixed times or
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."
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.
Section 4 of the said Act provided as follows :
"4. Determination of titles of claimants to
exemption.-
In the adjudication of claims to exempt 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 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 tenures for service to the Crown or tenures of a
political nature, and the titles and continuance of such
jagirs, 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
8
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 :
"(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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
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 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,
suject to such conditions as aforesaid."
9
To continue with our narrative, the Agricultural Lands
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 be sold to the
tenants as provided by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948). The
Appellant thereafter 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 remuneration for services and, therefore,
they were not liable to be proceeded against under the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. By the said
application, the Appellant’s father requested the Collector
to order the Memlatdar to give 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, 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 :
" 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.
(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, 1963, a Chitnis by
the name of Desai took the said notice from the Appellant
and took it to the Collector and in the presence of the
Collector
10
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
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.
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, 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 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
(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, order
notification or any other instrument, having the
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
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
appertaining to it have ceased to be demanded;
11
(11) ’Patel watan’ means a watan held under the
existing watan law for the performance of duties
appertaining to the hereditary patelship, whether
any commutation settlement in respect of such
patel watan has or has not been effected".
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,
(b) whether any person is a watandar, matadar or
representative watandar,
(c) whether any person is an unauthorised holder
or 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 after holding an inquiry, decide the
question.
(2) Any person aggrieved by such decision may file
an appeal to the State Government within ninety
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
days of such decision.
(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."
The Abolition Act also contains provisions for re-grant of
watan land either to the holder of the watan or to
authorized 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
lease.
12
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
under the Resumption Rules, 1908. It is an admitted position
that neither the original grant nor its copy was traceable.
In 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 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 originally assessed at Rs. 557 has been
assigned to the Patel of Malharpura, taluka Matar, for his
remuneration". 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 in the said letter as follows :
"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
been converted subsequently into Patel’s service
inam land under the then Collector’s vernaintar
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."
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 the land. In his said application dated July 3,
1960, made to
13
the Collector, District Kaira, the Appellant’s father had
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
Government’ and those lands have been given to me
as remuneration for services."
The Appellant had also given a statement which was
reproduced in the said application. In the said statement it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
was stated, "We are doing Mukhiship of village Malarpura,
taluka Matar (hereditary). We did not get any salary from
the treasury for this service but Government has given some
lands for remuneration." During the pendency 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 work of my ancestor 74 acres and 10 gunthas of
lands were given to my said ancestor by the Government and
that was as Inam 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, therefore, liable to resumption.
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 subject-matter of watan and were, therefore, not liable
to 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 case made out by the Appellant’s
father with respect to these lands was as follows :
" Thereupon the additional compensation was
invested in Government bonds and the Government
bonds were kept in Government possession. As and
14
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.
In that way I had purchased from Government nearly
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, Vasan Khurd, Parsantaj,
Naika, Pansoli, Kanera, Antroli Punaj and
Chanindra and Government converted the same into
Inam service land and therefore the lands
purchased in this and previous lands in my
possession are of the same class and all these
lands are of my possession and ownership."
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
resumption proceedings was not given to the Appellant or his
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 were added later in the letter by the Chitnis in
the presence 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 the said application as being to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
enable the advocate to obtain information about the
Resumption Rules. It may be mentioned 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.
15
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 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 is equally no substance in this connection.
Section 22 provides as follows :
22. Savings. -
Nothing contained in this Act shall affect -
(i) any obligations or liability already incurred
under an incident of a patel watan before the
appointed day, or
(ii) any proceedings or remedy in respect of such
obligation or liability, and any such proceeding
may be continued or any such remedy may be
enforced as if this Act had not been passed."
Thus, there are two things which are saved by section
22, namely, (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. 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
remuneration derived from the profits of the enjoyment of
watan lands was unnecessarily high, he might in his
discretion 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 subject to such
conditions which he might deem fit to impose. Under the said
Rule 4 the Collector had the power to determine whether the
remuneration for the
16
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. 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 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 December 31, 1962. In the said letter, an
express statement 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
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 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, 1963, this liability being that the
said lands or a part thereof were liable to be resumed
inasmuch as the remuneration received by the patel in
respect of the services performed by him was wholly
disproportionate to the remuneration actually payable for
such service. The proceedings before the Collector thus fell
within the express terms of the said section 22 and under
that section they could 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 must fail
and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
A.P.J. Appeal dismissed.
17