PETITIONER: NAVINCHANDRA BABUBHAI NAGARSHETH AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: BOMBAY REVENUE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/01/1966 BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. MUDHOLKAR, J.R. BACHAWAT, R.S. CITATION: 1966 AIR 1509 1966 SCR (3) 412 ACT: Bombay Personal Inams Abolition, Act (42 of 1953), ss. 5, 17(1) and (5)-Grant of land with exemption regarding, payment of land revenue--Inam abolished-Inamdsr's right to compensation. HEADNOTE: The appellants were holders of shares in Inam villages. on the, Inams being abolished by Bombay Personal In Abolition ACt, 1953 they claimed compensation for their Inam under s. 17(1) of the Act. By a. 17(5). "Nothing is this section shall entitle any person to compensation on the ground that any inam village, or inam land which has (sic.) wholly or partially exempt from the payment of land revenue has been under the provision of this Act made subject to the payment of full assessment in accordance with the ;provisions of the Code ." section 5 of the Act provide, "(i) 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 and rules made thereunder and the provisions the Code and the rules relating to unalienated land shall apply to such lands. (12) (a) 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, referred to in clause- (b) below or (b) an inferior holder holding inam land on payment of annual assessment only shall Primarily be 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 ocupant under the Code or the rules made thereunder or, any other law for the time being in force." HELD (Per Sarkar J.) (1). On a construction of the Sanad by which the inams were granted, the,grants were of villages and exemption from land revenue as mentioned, 14 s. 17(5). Mat the tenants paid to the Inamdars was not something which was due to the Government which, the Inamdars kept to themselves but was Tent due to the Inamdars. [414 G;415 C] Even after the survey in the Inam villages in 1900 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 the Inamdars remained the grantees of the soil exempt from payment of revenue and the tenants remained liable, as before, to pay rent to the Inamdars. [415 E-F] (2) Section 5 of the Act does not show that the Inamdars were claiming compensation for the loss of money that they used to collect from the inferior holders, the right to which collection was abolished by the Act and, therefore s. 17(5) did not apply to them. The fact that under a. 5 the Inamdar has not himself been made liable for 'the revenue in respect of the land held by the inferior holders, made no differentce. By s. 5 an 7 413 Inamdar has been deprived of his right to the assessment from the inferior holders and the inferior holders have been made liable to pay that assesment to the Government. Therefore, in actual result, the Inamdar has been deprived of his right to the assessment because the land has, been made subject to the payment of land revenue and he was, therefore covered by s. 17 (5.). [416 E-G] Per Mudholkar, J. : Section 5 (1) of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1953, creates liability to pay and revenue to the Government with respect to inam laads, in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. Where lands were in possession inferior holders s. 5(2) (b) places the liability, on the inferior holders. The loss resulting to the inamdars is the. direct consequence of the operation of these provisions. Therefore s. 17(5) of the Act bars the claim for compensation for loss of the right of the appellants to recover from the inferior holders land revenue, assessed 'on the lands in their posmsion. [419 C-E] Per Bachawat, I The grants of the villages,. on the construction of the deeds were grants of villages Partial exetmption from payment of land revenue and were personal of the category specified in s. 2(1) (e) (i). The introduction of, the survey settlement made no difference in the character pi the inams. After the Abolition-.Act,; the lands no longer enjoyed either total or Spartial exemption from payment of land revenue. By s. 5 (.1) of the Act, all inam lands are now liable to payment of full land revenus By s. 5 (2) (b), in respect of lands held by inferior holders the inferior holders now enjoy the status of occupants, and are liable to pay the land revenue directly to the State Government. The appellants were not entitl ed to claim compensation in respect of the abolition of their right to recover assessment from the inferior hoders, because such a claim is really on the ground that the inam lands which were formerly exempt from payment of land I revenue have been subjected by the Act to payment of full assessment. Such a claim is based by s. 17(5). A grant of village or land with total or partial exemption of land revenue is essentially different from a grant of land revenue and the distinction has been Preserved by the Act, On the extension of the, grant of land revenue, the "namdar lows all right in respect of the grant and he is therefore entitled to full compensation order s. 17(1). On the other hand, on. abolition of the grant of an.-in= village or land the inamdar is allowed to retain and enjoy various rights and benefits, but at the 6' .Me time the right to compensation under s. 17(1) is subject to the bar of [420 H-421 H] JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil, “Appeals Nos. 10481050
of 1963.
Appeals from the judgment and debreedated
September 1958 of the Bombay High Court iii special Civil
Applications Nos.. 1100, 1161 and 1162 of 1958.
D. B. Padhya, J. B. Nagar and. A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the
appellants (in all the appeals).
S. G. Patwardhan, and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents
Nos. 2 and 3 (in all the three appeals).
414
The following Judgments were delivered
Sarkar, J. These three appeals concern compensation payable
under the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952 to the
appellants for abolition of their inams. Some of the
appellants held shares in the inam village of Wanz and some
in that of Dindoli. The appellants had moved the High Court
at Bombay by several petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of
the Constitution for quashing the decision of the Bombay
Revenue Tribunal regarding the compensation. The petitions
were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment.
These appeals are against that judgment under a certificate
granted by the High Court.
The appellants had claimed compensation under several heads
based on different grounds but two of them survive. The
first is that the appellants are entitled to compensation
for loss of assessment payable to them by inferior holders,
a special class, of tenants holding lands from them. The
Act does not expressly provide for compensation in respect
of such lands. Sub-section (1) of S. 17 of the Act however
provides that if any person is aggrieved by the provisions
of the Act abolishing any of his rights to or interest in
property and if compensation for such abolition has not been
provided for, such person may apply to the Collector for
compensation. The appellants, base their claim on this
section. Sub-on (5) of this section makes the right under
sub-s. (1) unavailable in a certain case and the question is
whether the appellant’s claim fell within it. Now the sub-
section is in these terms:
S. 17(5)-Nothing in this section shall
entitle any person to compensation on the
ground that any inam village or inam land
which has (sic.) 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.
Clearly this sub-section applies only to a certain kind of
claim for compensation in respect of an inam village exempt
from payment of land revenue. The appellants say that
their inams were not of this kind and so the subsection does
not affect their claim. According to them, their inams
consisted of a grant of land re. venue only. The nature of
an inam depends on the sanad or the terms of the grant. The
High Court held on a construction of the sanads that the
inams were grants of the villages with exemption from land
revenue, because the words of the grant conveyed the soil
and rights over trees, water, mines etc. This view is
obviously correct.
The appellants then said that notwithstanding that the soil
had been granted, their inams were none the less of land
revenue only. Their contention is that before the grants
the tenants in
415
occupation paid revenue to the Government and thereafter to
the inamdars and the latter being exempt from the liability
to pay it over to the Government, the net result was that
the inamdars retained the land revenue and were, therefore,
the grantees thereof This contention is idle. There is
nothing to show that there were tenants holding lands in the
villages before the grants which were made in 1794 and 1803
respectively and whether they paid anything and if so, what
? Furthermore, what the tenants paid to the inamdars
(holders of the inams) after the grants was rent and not
revenue; it was for the inamdars to fix the amount of it or
forego it altogether if they so liked. What the tenants
paid to the inamdars. was not something which was due to the
Government which the inamdars kept to themselves having been
exempted from the liability to pay it over to the
Government; it was rent due to the inamdars.
It was next said that whatever might have been the position
earlier, after the introduction of the survey in the
villages in 1900 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879
what a tenant paid to, an inamdar was land revenue. There
is no justification for this. contention either. No doubt
since the introduction of the survey the amounts payable by
the tenants to the inamdars were all assessed under the
Code. The nature of the assessment payable was not however
altered thereby nor did it become land revenue. The survey
fixed the amount payable by, a tenant to the inamdar and
gave him certain rights. It also conferred certain benefits
on the inamdar in the matter of the realisation of his dues.
The fact that the assessment was made in the same way as
land revenue. made no difference. It did not change the
right to the assessment. Notwithstanding all this the
inamdar remained the grantee of the soil and a person who
was not liable to pay revenue in respect of it and likewise
the tenant remained liable as before to pay rent to the
inamdar.
Furthermore, the distinction between the two kinds of
grants, is well recognised and has been maintained by the
Act by specifying in s. 2 (1)(e) that an inam means a grant
of a village with exemption from liability to pay land
revenue and also a grant of land revenue only. The
appellants’ contention would in effect wipe out this
distinction and cannot therefore be accepted.
The appellants then contended that even if their inams were
grants of villages exempt from payment of land revenue, sub-
s. (5) of s. 17 did not bar their claim because they were
not claiming compensation on the ground that the inam
villages previously exempted from land revenue had under the
Act been made subject to it. They say that they have not
been made liable to pay land revenue themselves and are only
claiming the loss of the money that they used to collect
from the inferior holders, the right to-
416
which collection was abolished by the Act. This contention
is based on s. 5 of the Act which is set out below:
S. 5. (1) 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 and the rules made thereunder and the
provisions of the Code and the rules relating
to unalienated land shall apply to such lands.
(2)(a) 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, referred to in clause(b) below, or
(b) an inferior, holder holding inam land on
payment of annual assessment only shall
primarily be 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.
It seems to ‘me that this contention is also without any
foundation. The inamdar’s right to appropriate to himself
the assessment Axed by the survey and collected from the
inferior holders existed on because’ be was exempt from the
liability to pay land ‘revenue. If he was not so exempt,
then what he-collected from the inferior holders would have
to be paid over to the Government. ‘It would. follow that
the loss for’ Which the appellants claim compensation was
really occasioned by the lands being subjected to revenue by
s. 5(2)(b). The fact that the inamdar has not himself been
made liable for the revenue in respect of the lands held by
inferior holders makes no difference. The substance of the
matter is th the inamdar has been deprived of his right to
the assessment from the inferior holders and the inferior
holders have been made liable to pay that assessment to the
Government. So in actual result the inamdar has been
deprived of his right to the assessment because the land has
been made subject to payment of land revenue. His claim for
the loss of assessment is,, therefore, in reality based on
the ground that the lands which were free from revenue have
been made subject to it. Sub-section (5) of s. 17 does
provide that the bar mentioned in it operates only when land
revenue is made payable the inamdar.
It also seems to me that any other interpretation would
lead to a result which could not have been intended. It is
not in dispute that for the loss. of rights in respect of
lands in his own possession excepting those mentioned in s.
7 or any lands in possession of persons holding from him
other than as inferior holders an inamdar is ‘not entitled
to compensation. It is admitted that
417
such compensation could not be allowed in view of s. 17
(5). It would be difficult to imagine a reason for the
legislature to have made a distinction between such lands
and lands in the possession of inferior holders.
The other part of the claim concerns the right to forfeit
the ,inferior holders’ tenancies for nonpayment of rent and
the right of reversion in respect of them. These the
appellants, have no doubt lost. The Collector asked the
appellants to produce evidence in support of their claims
under this head. They failed to do so. They could not even
cite one instance of the exercise of any such right. It
would be impossible to ‘value the loss in respect of them as
no material for doing so, is on the record nor was furnished
by, the appellants. No compensation can,. therefore, be
assessed or awarded for the loss of these rights.
The result is that the appeals fail and they are dismissed.
There will be no’ order as to costs.
Mudholkar, J. These appeals are from a judgment of the
Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petitions preferred by
the ;appellants before it. The appellants art co-sharers
either in the former Inam village Wanz or in the former
Inam village Dindoli, both of which are situate in Surat
District. Under the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition. Act,
1952 all personal Inams were extinguished and all Inam
villages as well as all Inam lands were ,made liable to the
payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of
the Land Revenue Code. The Act did not provide for
compensation to the Inamdars with respect to the loss of
their rights to hold their villages or lands free from
payment of land revenue. Under s. 10 of the Act, however,
compensation to the Inmadars was provided for the
extinguishment of certain rights possessed by them in their
Inam villages. Those rights vest, by virtue of the
provisions of s. 7 of the Act, in the Government. “Section
17(1) of the Act provides for payment of compensation to a
person aggrieved by the provisions of the Act which
abolished, extinguished or modified any of his rights or
interests in property .provided that compensation for such
abolition, extinguishbment or modification of those rights
had not ,been provided for in any of the provisions of the
Act. To this provision the following exception has been
made in sub-section (5):
“Nothing in this section shall entitle any
person to compensation on the ground that any
main village or inam land which has 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.”
418
It is common ground that in both the villages there were
holders of land called inferior holders. These were persons
claiming through tillers in cultivating possession of
different pieces of land in the Inam villages at the time of
the grant of the Inams. It is common ground that their
rights to continue to be in possession of those lands and
cultivate them were left in tact by the Inamdars and the
grantees of the Inams were only entitled to claim rents from
them. It is common ground that under S. 216 of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code, 1879 settlement was introduced both in
Wanz and Dindoli villages though at different points of
time. It is also the common case of the parties that after
the introduction of the survey, land revenue was assessed on
the lands held by the inferior holders and in place of their
liability to pay such rent as may be fixed from time to time
by the Inamdars they thenceforward were rendered liable to
pay to the Inamdar only the land revenue assessed at the
settlement. So far as the Government was concerned the
grantees of the villages Wanz and Dindoli were exempt from
paying land revenue not only in respect of lands held by the
inferior holders but also in respect of lands held by the
Inamdars themselves or held by persons holding through the
Inamdars. Now, in consequence of the extinguishment of the
right of the Inamdars to hold the villages revenue free they
have been rendered liable to pay land revenue, to the
Government in respect of the lands in their possession or in
the possession of persons holding through them. No
liability is, however, cast upon them to pay to the
Government land revenue in respect of lands in the
possession of inferior holders. This follows clearly from
s. 5 of the Act and is not disputed by either set of parties
to the appeal. No compensation is expressely provided for
the loss of the right of the Inamdar to recover from the
inferior holders land revenue assessed on the lands in their
possession. Mr. Padhya contends that the appellants would,
therefore, be entitled to claim compensation in respect of
this loss under s. 17(1). He points out that the loss of
this right to the Inamdars is not occasioned because of the
fact that the Ina= villages were made liable to pay full
assessment but because the inferior holders have now been
required to pay land revenue to the Government instead of to
the bamdars. It is difficult to accept this argument. The
relevant provision of the Act for consideration s.5 which
runs thus:
“5(1) AR inam villages or main lands are and
shall be liable to the payment of land revenue
in accordance with the provisions of the Code
and the rules made thereunder and the
provisions of the Code and the rules relating
to unalienated land shall apply to such lands.
(2)(a) An inamdar in respect of the inam land
in his actual possession or in possession of a
person holding from
419
him other than an inferior holder, referred to
in clause (b) below, or
(b) an inferior holder holding inam land on
payment of annual assessment onlv shall
primarily be liable to the State Government
for the payment of land revenue due in respect
of such land held by him ano 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.”
.lm0
It is sub-section (1) of this section which
creates liability to pay land revenue. Sub-
section (2) then proceeds to say as to who is
made liable to pay land revenue: the Inamdar
or holder from the Inamdar or an inferior
holder. Clause (b) of sub-s. (2) which deals
with the liability placed on inferior holders
has, therefore, to be read with sub-s. (1) and
when they are so read it would be clear that
the loss resulting to the Inamdar is the
direct consequence of the operation of these
provisions. In other words it is the direct
consequence of the provisions of the Act that
lands in possession of inferior holders are
made liable to pay full assessment “in
accordance with the provisions of the Code”.
This in the context means, liable to pay full
assessment to the Government. It is true that
by making this provision the Inamdars have
sustained loss of one of their rights in
property. it is also true that if s. 17(1)
does not apply-as in my view it does not
applyno compensation is payable to the
Inamdars. However, as no argument has been
raised before us that the aforesaid provision
of the Act infringes the guarantee
incorporated in Art. 31(1) of the Constitution
and is, therefore, unconstitutional the
provisions of s. 5 of the Act must be held to
be fully operative.
It was faintly urged by learned counsel that
the Inamdar’s right of reversion and right of
escheat have also been taken away by the Act
and no compensation is provided foe it. No
provision was, however, brought to our notice
by virtue of which it could be said that these
rights of the Inamdars have at all been
touched by the Act. Even assuming that these
rights have been taken away it seems to me
that the grounds given by the High Court for
rejecting the appellants claim are cogent and
adequate In the ‘result, therefore, I agree
that the appeals be dismissed. I would make
no order as to costs.
Bachawat, J. The appellants were holders of
shares in inam villages; some held shares in
the inam village of Wanz, others held shares
in the inam village of Dindoli. The inams
were abolished by the Bombay Personal Inams
Abolition Act, 1952. By s. 4 of the Act, save
as expressly provided by or under the Act, all
rights in the inams were extinguished Sections
10 and 17(1) provided for payment of
compensation. In view of sub-S. (5) of
s.17, no compensation- can be claimed under sub-s. (1) of
s. 17 on the ground that any inam village or inam land which
was wholly or partially exempt from payment of land revenue
has been under the Act made subject to the payment of full
assessment. The appellants filed claims for compensation
under ss. 10 and 17 (1) of the Act before the Collector of
Surat. We are now-concerned with the following. two claims
for compensation. under s. 17(1) of the Act: (1) loss for
the abolition of the right of the appellants to recover
assessment from the inferior: holders in respect of the
lands in their possession; (2) loss for the extinction of
the right of reversion and forfeiture in respect of those
lands. The Collect-or of surat and the Bombay Revenue
Tribunal concurrently held that the claim for compensation,
in respect of the first item was barred by s. 17(5) of the
Act and in respect of the claim under the second head, the
appellants failed to prove that they sustained any loss.
The appellants filed applications under Arts. 226 and 227 of
the Constitution before the High Court at Bombay challenging
the: Correctness of these findings. The High Court
dismissed the ‘applications.
Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, classifies personal inams into
two categories.’ The appellants Content that their inams
were grants of land revenue and therefore personal inams of
the second category specified in s. 2(1)(e)(ii). In respect
of the personal inam’ of the second category, the bar of s-.
17(5) is not attracted. On the other’ hand, the respondents
contend that the inams in question were grants of villages
partially exempt from payment of the land revenue, and
therefore personal, inams of the first category specified in
s’ 2(1)(e)(i). In respect of personal inams of the first
category, the. bar of s. 17(5) is attracted. The High Court
held-and, in my opinion, rightly that the grants of the
villages, on their true construction were grants of the
soil. The inamdars were not required to pay any land
revenue except the quit rent and some small haqs.
Consequently, the grants were grants of villages with)
partial exemption from payment of, the land revenue and were
Personal inams, of the first category specified in s.
l(1)(e)(i).
The survey and settlement of the villages under s. 216 of
the Land- Revenue Code, 1879 made no difference in the
character of the inams. The introduction of the survey
settlement did not confer on the inferior holders the
status, of occupants, nor render them liable to pay land
revenue to the Government,, they continued to, be inferior
holders under the inamdar and liable to Day the assessments
to him. In spite of the survey settlement, the villages
continued to be alienated villages and the inams continued
to be personal inams of the first category referred to in s.
2(1)(e)(i) of the Act.
The High Court rightly held that the appellants are not en.;
titled to claim compensation in, respect of the abolition of
their
421
421
right to recover assessment from the inferior holders. The
inam lands’ no longer enjoyed either total or partial
exemption from, payment of land revenue. By s. 5(1) of the
Act, all inam lands are now liable to payment of full land
revenue. By s. 5(2)(b), in respect of lands held by
inferior holders on payment of assessment only, the inferior
holders now enjoy the status of occupants, and are liable to
pay the land revenue directly to the State Government. In
respect of those lands, the inamdars are neither entitled to
collect the assessment from the inferior holders nor liable
to. pay land, revenue to the State Government. Had the
appellants’ right to recover assessment from the inferior
holders not been abolished, they would have been entitled
to recover the, amounts. of assessments from the inferior
holders and at the same time would have been liable to pay
the identical amounts to the Government on account of land
revenue. The loss consequential on the abolition of the
right to recover assessment is, therefore, nil. The claim
under this head is really on the ground that the. inam lands
which were formerly exempt from payment of land revenue have
been subjected by the Act to payment of full assessment.
Such a claim is barred by s. 17(5) of the Act.
With regard to the claim for compensation under the second
head, the High Court rightly held that the appellants could
not establish any loss under this head. They failed to show
that they exercised any right of forfeiture or claimed any
right of reversion at any time. I see no reason for
disturbing the finding of the High Court and the Tribunals
below on this point.
The appellants submit that in view of the ephemeral nature
of their rights of reversion and forfeiture in respect of
the lands held by the inferior holders, the grants of
villages, as far as they relate to those lands, are
assimilated to grants of land revenue.. They submit that the
High Court and the Tribunals below while holding that the
only right of the appellants in respect of those lands was
to recover the assessments from the inferior holders, have
inconsistently and unjustly held that the grants were grants
of inam villages and not of land revenue so as to attract
the bar of s. 17(5). This submission is not well-founded.
A grant of a village or land with total or partial
exemption from payment of land revenue is essentially
different from a grant of land revenue, and the distinction
has been preserved by the Act. On the extinction of the
grant of land revenue, the inamdar loses all rights in
respect of the grant, and he is therefore entitled to full
compensation under s. s. 17(1). On the other hand, on
abolition of the grant of an inam village or land, the
inamdar is allowed to retain and enjoy various rights and
benefits arising out of the grant. Section 5(2)(a) gives
him the rights of an occupant in respect of lands in his
actual possession or in possession of persons holding from
him other than
422
inferior holders. The grants of inam lands, on their true
construction, may include the right to mines or mineral
products see Secretary of State for India v. Shantaram
Naravan(1), and this right of the inamdar, if any, is
preserved by s. 9 ‘of the Act. By S. 10 of the Act the
inamdar holding inam villages or lands is entitled to
compensation in respect of any right or interest in any
property referred to in S. 7. He is also entitled to
compensation under S. 17(1), but this right is subject to
the provisions of S. 17(5). It will appear, therefore, that
the Act treats the inams of the two ,categories very
differently. While the holder of the inam of the first
category referred to in s. 2(1)(e)(i) suffers from the
disadvantage of the bar of s. 17 (5) in respect of
compensation, he enjoys numerous advantages which are denied
to the holder of the inam of the second category referred to
in s. 2(i)(e)(ii).
The appeals fail, and are dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs.
Appeals dismissed.
(1) (1925) 1. L. R. 49 Bom. 99.
423