PETITIONER: GANGADHARRAO NARAYANRAO MAJUMDAR Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER WITH CONNECTED APPEALS) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/10/1960 BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) KAPUR, J.L. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1961 AIR 288 1961 SCR (1) 943 CITATOR INFO : R 1961 SC 291 (2) R 1965 SC 632 (11) ACT: Inams--Abolition of Personal Inams--Constitutional validity of Enactment--" Estate " " Right in an estate ", meaning of--Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952 (Bom. 42 of 1953), ss. 4, 5, 7, 17--Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bom. 5 of 1879), s. 3(5)--Constitution of India, Arts. 31, 31--A. HEADNOTE: The appellants held personal inams which were governed by Bombay Acts Nos. II and VII of 1863 by virtue of which they held their lands on payment of land revenue which was less than the full assessment. After. the. coming into force of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, the appellants who were affected by it Challenged the validity of the Act on the grounds, inter alia, (i) that the property which had been dealt with under the Act was not an estate inasmuch as what ss. 4 and 5 extinguished was the right of the inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference between the full assessment and 944 the quit rent and this was not an estate within the meaning of Art. 31-A of the Constitution of India, and (2) that no compensation bad been provided in the Act for taking away the property of the appellants. Held: (i) that the right of the inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference between the full assessment and the quit rent was a right in respect of land revenue and was therefore a right in an estate by virtue of the definition in Art. 31-A(2)(b). Such a right also fell under S. 3(5) Of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and as such it was an estate under Art. 31-A. Accordingly, the Act when it extinguished or modified the rights of inamdars in inam estates was protected by Art. 31-A. (2) that sub-s. (5) Of s. 17 of the Act under which no compensation was to be paid for the loss to the inamdar of what he used to get because of the difference between the quit rent and the full assessment, was not invalid as Art. 31-A saved the Act from any attack under Art. 31 which was the only Article providing for compensation. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 155 to 160
of 1956.
Appeals from the judgments and orders of the Bombay High
Court dated July 6, 1954, in Special Civil Applications Nos.
393, 395, 409 and 632 of 1954; July 19, 1954, in Special
Civil Application No. 1205 of 1954; and July 30, 1954, in
Special Civil Application No. 1309 of 1954.
Purshottam Trikamdas, V. M. Limaye, E. Udayaratnam and S. S.
Shukla, for the appellants.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, N. P.
Nathwani, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
1960. October 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
WANCHOO J.-These six appeals on a certificate granted by the
Bombay High Court raise a common question as to the
constitutionality of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition
Act, No. XLII of 1953, (hereinafter called the Act) and will
be disposed of by this judgment. The appellants hold
personal inams which are covered by Bombay Acts Nos. 11 and
VII of 1863. The Act was attacked on a number of grounds in
the High Court of which only two have
945
been urged before us, namely, (i) that the property which
has been dealt with under the Act is not an estate and (ii)
that no compensation has been provided in the Act for taking
away the property of the appellants: The writ petitions were
opposed by the State of Bombay and the main contention on
its behalf was that the Act was protected under Art. 31-A of
the Constitution.
Before we deal with the two points raised before us, we
should like briefly to refer to the rights which holders of
personal inams had by virtue of Bombay Acts Nos. II and VII
of 1863. Act No. 11 extended to certain parts of the
Presidency of Bombay and dealt with holders of lands in
those parts who were holding lands wholly or partially
exempt from the payment of government land-revenue. The Act
provided for the cases of holders of such lands whose title
to exemption had not till then been formally adjudicated.
It laid down that if such holders of lands consented to
submit to the terms and conditions prescribed in the Act in
preference to being obliged to prove their title to the
exemption enjoyed by them, the Provincial Government would
be prepared to finally authorise and guarantee the
continuance, in perpetuity, of the said land to the said
holders, their heirs and assigns upon the said terms and
subject to the said conditions. The main provision of the
Act in this respect was that such holders of land would be
entitled to keep their lands in perpetuity subject to
payment of (i) a fixed annual payment as nazrana in
commutation of all claims of the Crown in respect of
succession and transfer which shall be calculated at the
rate of one anna for each rupee of assessment and (ii) a
quit-rent equal to one-fourth of the assessment. There were
other provisions in the Act for those cases where the
holders of such lands were not prepared to abide by the
conditions of the Act and wanted their claims to be
adjudicated; but we are not concerned with those provisions
for present purposes. Thus the main right which the holders
of lands got by Act 11 was that they held their lands on
payment of one-fourth of the assessment instead of full
946
assessment plus further one-sixteenth of the assessment;
thus they paid in all five annas in the rupee of the full
assessment and retained eleven annas in the rupee for
themselves.
Act No. VII dealt with similar holders of lands in the
remaining parts of the Presidency of Bombay, and made
similar provisions with this difference that such holders of
lands were to pay two annas for each rupee of the assessment
as quit-rent under s. 6. Thus those who came under Act VII
paid only two annas in the rupee of the assessment and
retained fourteen annas in the rupee for themselves.
We now turn to the provisions of the Act. By s. 2(c)
inamdar ” is defined as a holder of personal inam and
includes any person lawfully holding under or through him.
Section 2(d) defines an ” inam village or ” inam land ”
while s. 2(e) defines ” personal inam Section 3 provides
that the Act will not apply to certain inams including
devasthan inams or inams held by religious or charitable
institutions. The Explanation to the section lays down that
by the term ” inams held by religious or charitable institu-
tions ” will be meant devasthan or dharmadaya inams granted
or recognized by the ruling authority for the time being for
a religious or charitable institution and entered as such in
the alienation register kept under s. 53 of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter called the Code), or in the
records kept under the rules made under the Pensions Act,
1871. Thus so far as religious or charitable institutions
were concerned those inams which they held from the very
beginning as devasthan or dharmadaya inams and which were
entered in the relevant records were out of the provisions
of the Act. Section 4 extinguishes all personal inams and
save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of the
Act, all rights legally subsisting on the said date in
respect of such personal inams were also extinguished
subject to certain exceptions which are, however, not
material now. Section 5 provides that all inam villages or
inam lands are and shall be liable to the payment of land-
revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Code or the
947
rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Code and the
rules relating to unalienated lands shall apply to such
lands. It further provides that an inamdar in respect of
the inam land in his actual possession or in possession of a
person holding from him other than an inferior holder
(subject to an exception which we shall mention just now)
would be primarily liable to the State Government for the
payment of land-revenue due in respect of such land held by
him and shall be entitled to all the rights and shall be
liable to all obligations in respect of such land as an
occupant under the Code or the rules made thereunder or any
other law for the time being in force. Thus by s. 5 the
holder of a personal inam became for all practical purposes
an occupant under the Code liable to pay full land-revenue
and the advantage that he had under Acts II and VII of 1863
of paying only a part of the land-revenue and retaining the
rest for himself was taken away. The exception which we
have refer. red to above was where the inferior holder
holding inam land paid an amount equal to the annual assess-
ment to the holder of the personal inam, such inferior
holder would be liable to the State Government and would
become an occupant of the land under the Code. Section 7
then vests certain lands like public roads, paths and lanes,
the bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, the bed of the sea
and harbours, creeks below high water mark and of rivers,
streams, nallas, lakes, wells and tanks, and all canals,
water-courses, all standing and flowing water, all unbuilt
village sites, all waste lands and all uncultivated lands
(excluding lands used for building or other non-agricultural
purposes) in the State Government and extinguishes the
rights of inamdar in them. Section 8 deals with right to
trees and s. 9 with right to mines and mineral products.
Section 10 provides for compensation for extinguishment of
rights under s. 7 while s. 11 gives a right of appeal from
the order of the Collector under s. 10. Sections 12 to 16
deal with procedural matters and s. 17 provides for payment
of compensation for extinction or modification of an
inamdar’s right which may not be covered by s. 10. Sub-
section (5)
948
of s. 17 however says that ” nothing in this section shall
entitle any person to compensation on the ground that any
inam village or inam land which was wholly or partially
exempt from the payment of land revenue has been under the
provisions of this Act made subject to the payment of full
assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Code “.
Section 17-A provides for the issue of bonds while s. 18
provides for the application of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands; Act, 1948, to any inam village or. inam
land or the mutual rights and obligations of an inamdar and
his tenants. Section 19 provides for making of rules and s.
20 deals with repeals and amendments.
It will be seen from this analysis of the Act that the main
provisions are ss. 4, 5 and 7. So far as s. 7 is concerned,
there is provision for compensation with respect to lands
vested in the State by virtue of that section. But no
compensation is provided for the rights extinguished by as.
4 and 5. As we have seen already the main right of an
inamdar was to hold his lands on payment of land revenue
which was less than the full assessment and it is this right
which has been abolished by ss. 4 and 5 and the inamdar will
now have to pay the full assessment. No compensation has
been provided for the loss which the inamdar suffers by
having to pay the full assessment.
This brings us to the first contention. On behalf of the
appellants it is urged that what ss. 4 and 5 extinguish is
the right of the inamdar to appropriate to himself the
difference between the full assessment and the quit-rent,
and this is not an estate within the meaning of Art, 3 1 A
of the Constitution. The relevant provisions in Art. 31-A
for present purposes aref these:-
” 31-A (1)-Notwithstanding anything contained in art. 13, no
law providing for-
(a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any
rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any
such rights, or
(b)………………..
(c)……………….
949
(d)……………….
(e)……………….
shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is in-
consistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights
conferred by art. 14, art 19 or art. 31 ;
Provided……………
(2) In this article-
(a) the expression ‘ estate’ shall, in relation to any
local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its
local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land
tenures in force in that area, and shall also include any
jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant and in the
States of Madras and Kerala any janmam right;
(b) the expression ‘rights’ in relation to an estate shall
include any rights vesting in a proprietor, sub-proprietor,
under-proprietor, tenure-holder, raiyat, under-raiyat or
other intermediary and any rights or privileges in respect
of land revenue “.
It will be, clear from the definition of the word estate ”
in Art. 31-A(2)(a) that it specifically includes an ” inam ”
within it. As such it would be in our opinion idle to
contend that inams are not estates within the meaning of the
expression ” estate ” for the purpose of Art. 31-A. The Act
specifically deals with inams and would thus be obviously
protected under Art. 31-A from any attack under Art. 14,
Art. 19 or Art. 31. It is, however, urged that the right of
the inamdar to appropriate to himself that part of full
assessment which was left over after he had paid the quit-
rent to the Government is not a right in an estate. This
contention also has no force. Inams being estates, the
right of the inamdar to retain part of the full assessment
over and above the quit-rent payable to the Government
arises because he holds the inam-estate. The right
therefore can be nothing more than a right in an estate.
Besides the definition of the expression ” rights ” in Art.
31-A(2)(b) makes the position clear beyond all doubt, for it
provides that the rights in relation to an estate would
include any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue
121
950
Even if it were possible to say that the right of the
inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference between the
full assessment and the quit-rent was not a right in an
estate as such, it would become a right in an estate by
virtue of this inclusive definition for the inamdar’s right
could only be a right or privilege in respect of land-
revenue. Besides, it is clear that the right in question
falls under s. 3(5) of the Code and as such also it is an
estate under Art.31-A. The contention of the appellants
therefore that inams dealt with by the Act are not covered
by the expression ” estate ” in Art. 31-A fails. Their
further contention that their right to retain the difference
between full assessment and quit-rent is not a right in an
estate also fails. The Act therefore when it extinguishes
or modifies the rights of inamdars in the inam estates is
clearly protected by Art. 31-A.
The next contention is that the Act does not provide for
compensation and is therefore ultra vires in view of Art.
31. We find, however, that the Act has provided for
compensation under s. 10 so far as that part of inam lands
which are vested in the State by s. 7 are concerned.
Further s. 17 provides for compensation in a possible case
where anything has been left out by s. 7 and the inamdar is
entitled to compensation for it. It is true that by sub s.
(5) of s. 17 no compensation is to be paid for the loss to
the inamdar of what he used to get because of the difference
between the quit-rent and the full assessment. It is how-
ever clear that Art. 31-A saves the Act from any attack
under Art. 31 which is the only Article providing for
compensation. In this view of the matter the
constitutionality of the Act cannot be assailed on the
ground that it provides no compensation for extinction of
certain rights.
There is no force in these appeals and they are hereby
dismissed with costs. One set only of hearing costs.
Appeals dismissed.
951