{"id":38344,"date":"1966-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966"},"modified":"2017-01-14T00:02:56","modified_gmt":"2017-01-13T18:32:56","slug":"navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966","title":{"rendered":"Navinchandra Babubhai &#8230; vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Navinchandra Babubhai &#8230; vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1509, \t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 412<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Sarkar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sarkar, A.K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nNAVINCHANDRA  BABUBHAI NAGARSHETH AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBOMBAY REVENUE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n21\/01\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1509\t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 412\n\n\nACT:\nBombay\tPersonal Inams\tAbolition, Act (42 of 1953), ss.  5,\n17(1)  and  (5)-Grant  of  land\t with  exemption  regarding,\npayment of land revenue--Inam  abolished-Inamdsr's right  to\ncompensation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants were holders of shares in Inam villages.  on\nthe, Inams being abolished by Bombay Personal In  Abolition\nACt, 1953 they claimed compensation for their Inam under  s.\n17(1)  of the Act.  By a. 17(5).  \"Nothing is  this  section\nshall entitle any person to compensation on the ground\tthat\nany  inam village, or inam land which has (sic.)  wholly  or\npartially  exempt from the payment of land revenue has\tbeen\nunder the provision of this Act made subject to the  payment\nof full assessment in accordance with the ;provisions of the\nCode .\" section 5 of the Act provide,\n\t      \"(i) All inam villages or inam, lands are\t and\n\t      shall be liable to the Payment of land revenue\n\t      in accordance with the provisions of the\tCode\n\t      and  rules made thereunder and the  provisions\n\t      the Code and the rules relating to unalienated\n\t      land shall apply to such lands.\n\t       (12) (a)\t An inamdar in respect of  the\tinam\n\t      land in his actual Possession or in possession\n\t      of a person holding from him other than  'an\n\t      inferior\tholder, referred to in\tclause-\t (b)\n\t      below or\n\t       (b)  an inferior holder holding inam land  on\n\t      payment\tof  annual  assessment\tonly   shall\n\t      Primarily\t be liable to the  State  Government\n\t      for  the\tpayment\t of  land  revenue,  due  in\n\t      respect of such land held by him and shall  be\n\t      entitled to all the rights and shall be liable\n\t      to all obligations in respect of such land  as\n\t      An  ocupant under the Code or the\t rules\tmade\n\t      thereunder  or,  any other law  for  the\ttime\n\t      being in force.\"\nHELD (Per Sarkar J.) (1).  On a construction of the Sanad by\nwhich  the inams were granted, the,grants were\tof  villages\nand  exemption from land revenue as mentioned, 14 s.  17(5).\nMat the tenants paid to the Inamdars was not something which\nwas  due  to  the Government which,  the  Inamdars  kept  to\nthemselves but was Tent due to the Inamdars. [414 G;415 C]\nEven after the survey in the Inam villages in 1900 under the\nBombay\tLand  Revenue Code, 1879 the Inamdars  remained\t the\ngrantees of the soil exempt from payment of revenue and\t the\ntenants\t remained  liable,  as before, to pay  rent  to\t the\nInamdars. [415 E-F]\n(2)  Section  5 of the Act does not show that  the  Inamdars\nwere  claiming compensation for the loss of money that\tthey\nused  to  collect from the inferior holders,  the  right  to\nwhich collection was abolished by the Act and, therefore  s.\n17(5)  did not apply to them.  The fact that under a. 5\t the\nInamdar has not himself been made liable for 'the revenue in\nrespect\t of the land held by the inferior holders,  made  no\ndifferentce.  By s. 5 an\n7\n\t\t\t    413\nInamdar\t has  been deprived of his right to  the  assessment\nfrom the inferior holders and the inferior holders have been\nmade  liable  to  pay  that  assesment\tto  the\t Government.\nTherefore,  in actual result, the Inamdar has been  deprived\nof  his right to the assessment because the land  has,\tbeen\nmade  subject  to the payment of land revenue  and  he\twas,\ntherefore covered by s. 17 (5.). [416 E-G]\nPer  Mudholkar,\t J. : Section 5 (1) of the  Bombay  Personal\nInams  Abolition  Act, 1953, creates liability\tto  pay\t and\nrevenue\t to  the Government with respect to inam  laads,  in\naccordance  with the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue\nCode, 1879.  Where lands were in possession inferior holders\ns.  5(2) (b) places the liability, on the inferior  holders.\nThe   loss  resulting  to  the\tinamdars  is   the.   direct\nconsequence of the operation of these provisions.  Therefore\ns. 17(5) of the Act bars the claim for compensation for loss\nof the right of the appellants to recover from the  inferior\nholders\t land  revenue,\t assessed 'on  the  lands  in  their\nposmsion. [419 C-E]\nPer Bachawat, I\nThe  grants of the villages,. on   the\t    construction  of\nthe deeds  were grants of villages Partial  exetmption\tfrom\npayment of land revenue and were personal    of the category\nspecified  in  s. 2(1) (e) (i).\t The  introduction  of,\t the\nsurvey settlement made no difference in the character pi the\ninams.\t After\tthe  Abolition-.Act,; the  lands  no  longer\nenjoyed\t either total or Spartial exemption from payment  of\nland  revenue.\tBy s. 5 (.1) of the Act, all inam lands\t are\nnow liable to payment of full land revenus By s. 5 (2)\t(b),\nin respect of lands held by   inferior holders the  inferior\nholders now enjoy the status of occupants, and are liable to\npay the land revenue directly to the State Government.\t The\nappellants  were  not  entitl ed to  claim  compensation  in\nrespect\t  of  the  abolition  of  their\t right\tto   recover\nassessment from the inferior hoders, because such a claim is\nreally on the ground that the inam lands which were formerly\nexempt from payment of land I revenue have been subjected by\nthe  Act  to payment of full assessment.  Such\ta  claim  is\nbased by s. 17(5).\nA  grant of village or land with total or partial  exemption\nof  land  revenue is essentially different from a  grant  of\nland  revenue and the distinction has been Preserved by\t the\nAct,  On  the extension of the, grant of land  revenue,\t the\n\"namdar\t lows  all right in respect of the grant and  he  is\ntherefore entitled to full compensation order s. 17(1).\t  On\nthe other  hand,  on.  abolition of  the  grant\t of  an.-in=\nvillage\t or land the inamdar is allowed to retain and  enjoy\nvarious\t rights\t and benefits, but at the  6' .Me  time\t the\nright  to compensation under s. 17(1) is subject to the\t bar\nof [420 H-421 H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil, &#8220;Appeals Nos.  10481050<br \/>\nof 1963.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals\t    from     the    judgment\t and\t debreedated<br \/>\nSeptember  1958 of the Bombay High Court iii  special  Civil<br \/>\nApplications Nos.. 1100, 1161 and 1162 of 1958.<br \/>\nD.   B. Padhya, J. B. Nagar and.  A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for\t the<br \/>\nappellants (in all the appeals).\n<\/p>\n<p>S.   G.\t Patwardhan, and R. H. Dhebar, for  the\t respondents<br \/>\nNos. 2 and 3 (in all the three appeals).\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">414<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The following Judgments were delivered<br \/>\nSarkar, J. These three appeals concern compensation  payable<br \/>\nunder  the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952 to\t the<br \/>\nappellants  for\t abolition  of their  inams.   Some  of\t the<br \/>\nappellants held shares in the inam village of Wanz and\tsome<br \/>\nin that of Dindoli.  The appellants had moved the High Court<br \/>\nat  Bombay by several petitions under Arts. 226 and  227  of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution  for quashing the decision of\t the  Bombay<br \/>\nRevenue Tribunal regarding the compensation.  The  petitions<br \/>\nwere  disposed\tof by the High Court by a  common  judgment.<br \/>\nThese appeals are against that judgment under a\t certificate<br \/>\ngranted by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellants had claimed compensation under several  heads<br \/>\nbased  on  different grounds but two of them  survive.\t The<br \/>\nfirst  is that the appellants are entitled  to\tcompensation<br \/>\nfor loss of assessment payable to them by inferior  holders,<br \/>\na  special class, of tenants holding lands from\t them.\t The<br \/>\nAct  does not expressly provide for compensation in  respect<br \/>\nof such lands.\tSub-section (1) of S. 17 of the Act  however<br \/>\nprovides  that if any person is aggrieved by the  provisions<br \/>\nof  the Act abolishing any of his rights to or\tinterest  in<br \/>\nproperty and if compensation for such abolition has not been<br \/>\nprovided  for,\tsuch person may apply to the  Collector\t for<br \/>\ncompensation.\tThe  appellants, base their  claim  on\tthis<br \/>\nsection.   Sub-on (5) of this section makes the right  under<br \/>\nsub-s. (1) unavailable in a certain case and the question is<br \/>\nwhether the appellant&#8217;s claim fell within it.  Now the\tsub-<br \/>\nsection is in these terms:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t       S.   17(5)-Nothing  in  this  section   shall<br \/>\n\t      entitle  any  person to  compensation  on\t the<br \/>\n\t      ground that any inam village   or\t inam\tland<br \/>\n\t      which  has (sic.) wholly or  partially  exempt<br \/>\n\t      from  the\t payment of land  revenue  has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      under the provisions of this Act made  subject<br \/>\n\t      to   the\t payment  of  full   assessment\t  in<br \/>\n\t      accordance with the provisions of the Code.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Clearly\t this sub-section applies only to a certain kind  of<br \/>\nclaim for compensation in respect of an inam village  exempt<br \/>\nfrom  payment  of land revenue.\t The  appellants   say\tthat<br \/>\ntheir inams were not of this kind and so the subsection does<br \/>\nnot  affect  their claim.  According to\t them,\ttheir  inams<br \/>\nconsisted of a grant of land re. venue only.  The nature  of<br \/>\nan inam depends on the sanad or the terms of the grant.\t The<br \/>\nHigh  Court  held on a construction of the sanads  that\t the<br \/>\ninams  were grants of the villages with exemption from\tland<br \/>\nrevenue,  because the words of the grant conveyed  the\tsoil<br \/>\nand  rights  over  trees, water, mines etc.   This  view  is<br \/>\nobviously correct.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellants then said that notwithstanding that the\tsoil<br \/>\nhad  been  granted, their inams were none the less  of\tland<br \/>\nrevenue\t only.\tTheir contention is that before\t the  grants<br \/>\nthe tenants in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    415<\/span><br \/>\noccupation paid revenue to the Government and thereafter  to<br \/>\nthe inamdars and the latter being exempt from the  liability<br \/>\nto  pay it over to the Government, the net result  was\tthat<br \/>\nthe inamdars retained the land revenue and were,  therefore,<br \/>\nthe  grantees  thereof This contention is  idle.   There  is<br \/>\nnothing to show that there were tenants holding lands in the<br \/>\nvillages before the grants which were made in 1794 and\t1803<br \/>\nrespectively and whether they paid anything and if so,\twhat<br \/>\n?  Furthermore,\t what  the  tenants  paid  to  the  inamdars<br \/>\n(holders  of  the inams) after the grants was rent  and\t not<br \/>\nrevenue; it was for the inamdars to fix the amount of it  or<br \/>\nforego\tit  altogether if they so liked.  What\tthe  tenants<br \/>\npaid to the inamdars. was not something which was due to the<br \/>\nGovernment which the inamdars kept to themselves having been<br \/>\nexempted   from\t the  liability\t to  pay  it  over  to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment; it was rent due to the inamdars.<br \/>\nIt was next said that whatever might have been the  position<br \/>\nearlier,  after\t the  introduction  of\tthe  survey  in\t the<br \/>\nvillages  in 1900 under the Bombay Land Revenue\t Code,\t1879<br \/>\nwhat  a tenant paid to, an inamdar was land revenue.   There<br \/>\nis  no justification for this. contention either.  No  doubt<br \/>\nsince the introduction of the survey the amounts payable  by<br \/>\nthe  tenants  to the inamdars were all\tassessed  under\t the<br \/>\nCode.  The nature of the assessment payable was not  however<br \/>\naltered thereby nor did it become land revenue.\t The  survey<br \/>\nfixed  the  amount payable by, a tenant to the\tinamdar\t and<br \/>\ngave him certain rights.  It also conferred certain benefits<br \/>\non the inamdar in the matter of the realisation of his dues.<br \/>\nThe  fact  that the assessment was made in the same  way  as<br \/>\nland  revenue.\tmade no difference.  It did not\t change\t the<br \/>\nright  to  the\tassessment.  Notwithstanding  all  this\t the<br \/>\ninamdar\t remained the grantee of the soil and a\t person\t who<br \/>\nwas not liable to pay revenue in respect of it and  likewise<br \/>\nthe  tenant  remained liable as before to pay  rent  to\t the<br \/>\ninamdar.\n<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore,  the  distinction\tbetween\t the  two  kinds  of<br \/>\ngrants,\t is well recognised and has been maintained  by\t the<br \/>\nAct by specifying in s. 2 (1)(e) that an inam means a  grant<br \/>\nof  a  village\twith exemption from liability  to  pay\tland<br \/>\nrevenue\t and  also  a  grant  of  land\trevenue\t only.\t The<br \/>\nappellants&#8217;  contention\t would\tin  effect  wipe  out\tthis<br \/>\ndistinction and cannot therefore be accepted.<br \/>\nThe appellants then contended that even if their inams\twere<br \/>\ngrants of villages exempt from payment of land revenue, sub-<br \/>\ns.  (5) of s. 17 did not bar their claim because  they\twere<br \/>\nnot  claiming  compensation  on the  ground  that  the\tinam<br \/>\nvillages previously exempted from land revenue had under the<br \/>\nAct  been made subject to it.  They say that they have not<br \/>\nbeen made liable to pay land revenue themselves and are only<br \/>\nclaiming  the  loss of the money that they used\t to  collect<br \/>\nfrom the inferior holders, the right to-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">416<\/span><\/p>\n<p>which collection was abolished by the Act.  This  contention<br \/>\nis based on s. 5 of the Act which is set out below:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      S.    5.\t(1) All inam villages or inam  lands<br \/>\n\t      are and shall be liable to the payment of land<br \/>\n\t      revenue  in accordance with the provisions  of<br \/>\n\t      the Code and the rules made thereunder and the<br \/>\n\t      provisions of the Code and the rules  relating<br \/>\n\t      to unalienated land shall apply to such lands.<br \/>\n\t      (2)(a) An inamdar in respect of the inam\tland<br \/>\n\t      in his actual possession or in possession of a<br \/>\n\t      person holding from him other than an inferior<br \/>\n\t      holder, referred to in clause(b) below, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   an inferior, holder holding inam land on<br \/>\n\t      payment\tof  annual  assessment\tonly   shall<br \/>\n\t      primarily\t be liable to the  State  Government<br \/>\n\t      for  the\tpayment\t of  land  Revenue,  due  in<br \/>\n\t      respect of such land held by him and shall  be<br \/>\n\t      entitled to all the rights and shall-be liable<br \/>\n\t      to all obligations in respect of such land  as<br \/>\n\t      an  occupant under the Code or the rules\tmade<br \/>\n\t      thereunder  or  any other law,  for  the\ttime<br \/>\n\t      being in force.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It  seems  to &#8216;me that this contention is also\twithout\t any<br \/>\nfoundation.   The inamdar&#8217;s right to appropriate to  himself<br \/>\nthe  assessment\t Axed by the survey and collected  from\t the<br \/>\ninferior holders existed on because&#8217; be was exempt from the<br \/>\nliability  to pay land &#8216;revenue.  If he was not\t so  exempt,<br \/>\nthen what he-collected from the inferior holders would\thave<br \/>\nto be paid over to the Government.  &#8216;It would. follow  that<br \/>\nthe  loss for&#8217; Which the appellants claim  compensation\t was<br \/>\nreally occasioned by the lands being subjected to revenue by<br \/>\ns. 5(2)(b).  The fact that the inamdar has not himself\tbeen<br \/>\nmade liable for the revenue in respect of the lands held  by<br \/>\ninferior holders makes no difference.  The substance of\t the<br \/>\nmatter\tis th the inamdar has been deprived of his right  to<br \/>\nthe  assessment from the inferior holders and  the  inferior<br \/>\nholders have been made liable to pay that assessment to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment.   So  in  actual result  the  inamdar  has\tbeen<br \/>\ndeprived of his right to the assessment because the land has<br \/>\nbeen made subject to payment of land revenue.  His claim for<br \/>\nthe loss of assessment is,, therefore, in reality based\t on<br \/>\nthe ground that the lands which were free from revenue\thave<br \/>\nbeen  made  subject to it.  Sub-section (5) of\ts.  17\tdoes<br \/>\nprovide that the bar mentioned in it operates only when land<br \/>\nrevenue is made payable the inamdar.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  also  seems to me that any other  interpretation   would<br \/>\nlead to a result which could not have been intended.  It  is<br \/>\nnot  in dispute that for the loss. of rights in\t respect  of<br \/>\nlands in his own possession excepting those mentioned in  s.<br \/>\n7  or any lands in possession of persons holding  from\t him<br \/>\nother than as inferior holders an inamdar is &#8216;not  entitled<br \/>\nto compensation.  It is admitted that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">417<\/span><br \/>\nsuch  compensation  could not be allowed in view of  s.\t  17<br \/>\n(5).   It  would be difficult to imagine a  reason  for\t the<br \/>\nlegislature  to have made a distinction between\t such  lands<br \/>\nand lands in the possession of inferior holders.<br \/>\nThe  other part of the claim concerns the right\t to  forfeit<br \/>\nthe ,inferior holders&#8217; tenancies for nonpayment of rent\t and<br \/>\nthe  right  of\treversion in respect  of  them.\t  These\t the<br \/>\nappellants,  have  no doubt lost.  The Collector  asked\t the<br \/>\nappellants  to produce evidence in support of  their  claims<br \/>\nunder this head.  They failed to do so.\t They could not even<br \/>\ncite  one  instance of the exercise of any such\t right.\t  It<br \/>\nwould be impossible to &#8216;value the loss in respect of them as<br \/>\nno material for doing so, is on the record nor was furnished<br \/>\nby,  the  appellants.  No compensation can,.  therefore,  be<br \/>\nassessed or awarded for the loss of these rights.<br \/>\nThe result is that the appeals fail and they are  dismissed.<br \/>\nThere will be no&#8217; order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mudholkar,  J.\tThese  appeals are from a  judgment  of\t the<br \/>\nBombay High Court dismissing the writ petitions preferred by<br \/>\nthe  ;appellants before it.  The appellants  art  co-sharers<br \/>\neither\tin the former Inam village Wanz or in  the  former<br \/>\nInam  village  Dindoli, both of which are situate  in  Surat<br \/>\nDistrict.  Under the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition.\tAct,<br \/>\n1952  all  personal  Inams were extinguished  and  all\tInam<br \/>\nvillages as well as all Inam lands were ,made liable to\t the<br \/>\npayment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of<br \/>\nthe  Land  Revenue  Code.   The Act  did  not  provide for<br \/>\ncompensation  to  the Inamdars with respect to the  loss  of<br \/>\ntheir  rights  to  hold their villages or  lands  free\tfrom<br \/>\npayment\t of land revenue.  Under s. 10 of the Act,  however,<br \/>\ncompensation   to   the\t Inmadars  was\tprovided   for\t the<br \/>\nextinguishment of certain rights possessed by them in  their<br \/>\nInam  villages.\t  Those\t rights\t vest,\tby  virtue  of\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of s. 7 of the Act, in the Government.   &#8220;Section<br \/>\n17(1)  of the Act provides for payment of compensation to  a<br \/>\nperson\taggrieved  by  the  provisions\tof  the\t Act   which<br \/>\nabolished,  extinguished  or modified any of his  rights  or<br \/>\ninterests  in property .provided that compensation for\tsuch<br \/>\nabolition,  extinguishbment or modification of those  rights<br \/>\nhad  not ,been provided for in any of the provisions of\t the<br \/>\nAct.   To  this provision the following exception  has\tbeen<br \/>\nmade in sub-section (5):\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Nothing\tin  this section shall\tentitle\t any<br \/>\n\t      person to compensation on the ground that\t any<br \/>\n\t      main village or inam land which has wholly  or<br \/>\n\t      partially\t exempt\t from the  payment  of\tland<br \/>\n\t      revenue has been under the provisions of\tthis<br \/>\n\t      Act  made\t subject  to  the  payment  of\tfull<br \/>\n\t      assessment  in accordance with the  provisions<br \/>\n\t      of the Code.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      418<\/span><\/p>\n<p>It  is\tcommon ground that in both the villages\t there\twere<br \/>\nholders of land called inferior holders.  These were persons<br \/>\nclaiming  through  tillers  in\tcultivating  possession\t  of<br \/>\ndifferent pieces of land in the Inam villages at the time of<br \/>\nthe  grant  of the Inams.  It is common\t ground\t that  their<br \/>\nrights\tto continue to be in possession of those  lands\t and<br \/>\ncultivate  them\t were left in tact by the Inamdars  and\t the<br \/>\ngrantees of the Inams were only entitled to claim rents from<br \/>\nthem.\tIt is common ground that under S. 216 of the  Bombay<br \/>\nLand  Revenue Code, 1879 settlement was introduced  both  in<br \/>\nWanz  and  Dindoli villages though at  different  points  of<br \/>\ntime.  It is also the common case of the parties that  after<br \/>\nthe introduction of the survey, land revenue was assessed on<br \/>\nthe lands held by the inferior holders and in place of their<br \/>\nliability to pay such rent as may be fixed from time to time<br \/>\nby  the Inamdars they thenceforward were rendered liable  to<br \/>\npay  to\t the Inamdar only the land revenue assessed  at\t the<br \/>\nsettlement.   So  far as the Government\t was  concerned\t the<br \/>\ngrantees  of the villages Wanz and Dindoli were exempt\tfrom<br \/>\npaying land revenue not only in respect of lands held by the<br \/>\ninferior  holders but also in respect of lands held  by\t the<br \/>\nInamdars  themselves or held by persons holding through\t the<br \/>\nInamdars.  Now, in consequence of the extinguishment of\t the<br \/>\nright of the Inamdars to hold the villages revenue free they<br \/>\nhave  been  rendered  liable to pay  land  revenue,  to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment in respect of the lands in their possession or in<br \/>\nthe   possession  of  persons  holding\tthrough\t them.\t  No<br \/>\nliability  is,\thowever,  cast\tupon  them  to\tpay  to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment   land  revenue  in\trespect\t of  lands  in\t the<br \/>\npossession  of inferior holders.  This follows clearly\tfrom<br \/>\ns. 5 of the Act and is not disputed by either set of parties<br \/>\nto  the appeal.\t No compensation is expressely provided\t for<br \/>\nthe  loss  of the right of the Inamdar to recover  from\t the<br \/>\ninferior holders land revenue assessed on the lands in their<br \/>\npossession.  Mr. Padhya contends that the appellants  would,<br \/>\ntherefore,  be entitled to claim compensation in respect  of<br \/>\nthis  loss under s. 17(1).  He points out that the  loss  of<br \/>\nthis right to the Inamdars is not occasioned because of\t the<br \/>\nfact  that  the Ina= villages were made liable to  pay\tfull<br \/>\nassessment  but because the inferior holders have  now\tbeen<br \/>\nrequired to pay land revenue to the Government instead of to<br \/>\nthe bamdars.  It is difficult to accept this argument.\t The<br \/>\nrelevant  provision of the Act for consideration  s.5  which<br \/>\nruns thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;5(1)  AR inam villages or main lands are\t and<br \/>\n\t      shall be liable to the payment of land revenue<br \/>\n\t      in accordance with the provisions of the\tCode<br \/>\n\t      and   the\t rules\tmade  thereunder   and\t the<br \/>\n\t      provisions of the Code and the rules  relating<br \/>\n\t      to unalienated land shall apply to such lands.<br \/>\n\t      (2)(a) An inamdar in respect of the inam\tland<br \/>\n\t      in his actual possession or in possession of a<br \/>\n\t      person holding from<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      419<\/span><br \/>\n\t      him other than an inferior holder, referred to<br \/>\n\t      in clause (b) below, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   an inferior holder holding inam land  on<br \/>\n\t      payment\tof  annual  assessment\tonlv   shall<br \/>\n\t      primarily\t be liable to the  State  Government<br \/>\n\t      for the payment of land revenue due in respect<br \/>\n\t      of such land held by him ano shall be entitled<br \/>\n\t      to  all the rights and shall be liable to\t all<br \/>\n\t      obligations  in  respect of such\tland  as  an<br \/>\n\t      occupant\tunder  the Code or  the\t rules\tmade<br \/>\n\t      thereunder  or  any other law  for  &#8216;the\ttime<br \/>\n\t      being in force.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      .lm0<br \/>\n\t      It  is sub-section (1) of this  section  which<br \/>\n\t      creates  liability to pay land revenue.\tSub-<br \/>\n\t      section (2) then proceeds to say as to who  is<br \/>\n\t      made  liable to pay land revenue: the  Inamdar<br \/>\n\t      or  holder  from the Inamdar  or\tan  inferior<br \/>\n\t      holder.  Clause (b) of sub-s. (2) which  deals<br \/>\n\t      with the liability placed on inferior  holders<br \/>\n\t      has, therefore, to be read with sub-s. (1) and<br \/>\n\t      when  they are so read it would be clear\tthat<br \/>\n\t      the  loss\t resulting  to the  Inamdar  is\t the<br \/>\n\t      direct  consequence of the operation of  these<br \/>\n\t      provisions.   In other words it is the  direct<br \/>\n\t      consequence of the provisions of the Act\tthat<br \/>\n\t      lands  in possession of inferior\tholders\t are<br \/>\n\t      made   liable  to\t pay  full  assessment\t &#8220;in<br \/>\n\t      accordance  with the provisions of the  Code&#8221;.<br \/>\n\t      This in the context means, liable to pay\tfull<br \/>\n\t      assessment to the Government.  It is true that<br \/>\n\t      by  making  this provision the  Inamdars\thave<br \/>\n\t      sustained\t loss  of  one of  their  rights  in<br \/>\n\t      property.\t it  is also true that if  s.  17(1)<br \/>\n\t      does  not\t apply-as  in my view  it  does\t not<br \/>\n\t      applyno\tcompensation  is  payable   to\t the<br \/>\n\t      Inamdars.\t  However, as no argument  has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      raised before us that the aforesaid  provision<br \/>\n\t      of    the\t  Act\tinfringes   the\t   guarantee<br \/>\n\t      incorporated in Art. 31(1) of the Constitution<br \/>\n\t      and   is,\t therefore,   unconstitutional\t the<br \/>\n\t      provisions of s. 5 of the Act must be held  to<br \/>\n\t      be fully operative.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      It  was faintly urged by learned counsel\tthat<br \/>\n\t      the Inamdar&#8217;s right of reversion and right  of<br \/>\n\t      escheat  have also been taken away by the\t Act<br \/>\n\t      and  no compensation is provided foe  it.\t  No<br \/>\n\t      provision was, however, brought to our  notice<br \/>\n\t      by virtue of which it could be said that these<br \/>\n\t      rights  of  the  Inamdars\t have  at  all\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      touched by the Act.  Even assuming that  these<br \/>\n\t      rights  have  been taken away it seems  to  me<br \/>\n\t      that  the grounds given by the High Court\t for<br \/>\n\t      rejecting the appellants claim are cogent\t and<br \/>\n\t      adequate\tIn the &#8216;result, therefore,  I  agree<br \/>\n\t      that  the appeals be dismissed.  I would\tmake<br \/>\n\t      no order as to costs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t      Bachawat,\t J. The appellants were\t holders  of<br \/>\n\t      shares  in inam villages; some held shares  in<br \/>\n\t      the  inam village of Wanz, others held  shares<br \/>\n\t      in  the  inam village of Dindoli.\t  The  inams<br \/>\n\t      were  abolished by the Bombay  Personal  Inams<br \/>\n\t      Abolition Act, 1952.  By s. 4 of the Act, save<br \/>\n\t      as expressly provided by or under the Act, all<br \/>\n\t      rights in the inams were extinguished Sections<br \/>\n\t      10   and\t 17(1)\tprovided  for\tpayment\t  of<br \/>\n\t      compensation.  In view of sub-S. (5) of<br \/>\n s.17,\tno compensation- can be claimed under sub-s. (1)  of<br \/>\ns. 17 on the ground that any inam village or inam land which<br \/>\nwas wholly or partially exempt from payment of land  revenue<br \/>\nhas  been under the Act made subject to the payment of\tfull<br \/>\nassessment.   The appellants filed claims  for\tcompensation<br \/>\nunder  ss. 10 and 17 (1) of the Act before the Collector  of<br \/>\nSurat.\tWe are now-concerned with the following. two  claims<br \/>\nfor  compensation. under s. 17(1) of the Act: (1)  loss\t for<br \/>\nthe  abolition\tof the right of the  appellants\t to  recover<br \/>\nassessment  from  the inferior: holders in  respect  of\t the<br \/>\nlands  in their possession; (2) loss for the  extinction  of<br \/>\nthe  right of reversion and forfeiture in respect  of  those<br \/>\nlands.\t The  Collect-or  of surat and\tthe  Bombay  Revenue<br \/>\nTribunal concurrently held that the claim for  compensation,<br \/>\nin  respect of the first item was barred by s. 17(5) of\t the<br \/>\nAct  and in respect of the claim under the second head,\t the<br \/>\nappellants  failed  to prove that they sustained  any  loss.<br \/>\nThe appellants filed applications under Arts. 226 and 227 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution before the High Court at Bombay challenging<br \/>\nthe:   Correctness  of\tthese  findings.   The\tHigh   Court<br \/>\ndismissed the &#8216;applications.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section\t 2(1)(e) of the Act, classifies personal inams\tinto<br \/>\ntwo  categories.&#8217;  The appellants Content that\ttheir  inams<br \/>\nwere grants of land revenue and therefore personal inams  of<br \/>\nthe second category specified in s. 2(1)(e)(ii).  In respect<br \/>\nof the personal inam&#8217; of the second category, the bar of s-.<br \/>\n17(5) is not attracted.\t On the other&#8217; hand, the respondents<br \/>\ncontend\t that the inams in question were grants of  villages<br \/>\npartially  exempt  from\t payment of the\t land  revenue,\t and<br \/>\ntherefore personal, inams of the first category specified in<br \/>\ns&#8217;  2(1)(e)(i).\t In respect of personal inams of  the  first<br \/>\ncategory, the. bar of s. 17(5) is attracted.  The High Court<br \/>\nheld-and,  in  my opinion, rightly that the  grants  of\t the<br \/>\nvillages,  on  their true construction were  grants  of\t the<br \/>\nsoil.\tThe  inamdars  were not required  to  pay  any\tland<br \/>\nrevenue\t  except  the  quit  rent  and\tsome   small   haqs.<br \/>\nConsequently,  the  grants  were grants\t of  villages  with)<br \/>\npartial exemption from payment of, the land revenue and were<br \/>\nPersonal  inams,  of  the first\t category  specified  in  s.<br \/>\nl(1)(e)(i).\n<\/p>\n<p>The  survey and settlement of the villages under s.  216  of<br \/>\nthe  Land-  Revenue  Code, 1879 made no\t difference  in\t the<br \/>\ncharacter  of  the inams.  The introduction  of\t the  survey<br \/>\nsettlement  did\t not  confer on\t the  inferior\tholders\t the<br \/>\nstatus,\t of  occupants, nor render them liable to  pay\tland<br \/>\nrevenue\t to the Government,, they continued to, be  inferior<br \/>\nholders under the inamdar and liable to Day the\t assessments<br \/>\nto  him.   In spite of the survey settlement,  the  villages<br \/>\ncontinued  to be alienated villages and the inams  continued<br \/>\nto be personal inams of the first category referred to in s.<br \/>\n2(1)(e)(i) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court rightly held that the appellants are not en.;<br \/>\ntitled to claim compensation in, respect of the abolition of<br \/>\ntheir<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">421<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">421<\/span><br \/>\nright to recover assessment from the inferior holders.\t The<br \/>\ninam  lands&#8217;  no  longer enjoyed  either  total\t or  partial<br \/>\nexemption from, payment of land revenue.  By s. 5(1) of\t the<br \/>\nAct,  all inam lands are now liable to payment of full\tland<br \/>\nrevenue.   By  s.  5(2)(b),  in respect\t of  lands  held  by<br \/>\ninferior holders on payment of assessment only, the inferior<br \/>\nholders now enjoy the status of occupants, and are liable to<br \/>\npay  the land revenue directly to the State Government.\t  In<br \/>\nrespect of those lands, the inamdars are neither entitled to<br \/>\ncollect the assessment from the inferior holders nor  liable<br \/>\nto.  pay  land, revenue to the State  Government.   Had\t the<br \/>\nappellants&#8217;  right to recover assessment from  the  inferior<br \/>\nholders\t  not been abolished, they would have been  entitled<br \/>\nto  recover the, amounts. of assessments from  the  inferior<br \/>\nholders\t and at the same time would have been liable to\t pay<br \/>\nthe  identical amounts to the Government on account of\tland<br \/>\nrevenue.   The\tloss consequential on the abolition  of\t the<br \/>\nright  to recover assessment is, therefore, nil.  The  claim<br \/>\nunder this head is really on the ground that the. inam lands<br \/>\nwhich were formerly exempt from payment of land revenue have<br \/>\nbeen  subjected\t by the Act to payment of  full\t assessment.<br \/>\nSuch a claim is barred by s. 17(5) of the Act.<br \/>\nWith  regard to the claim for compensation under the  second<br \/>\nhead, the High Court rightly held that the appellants  could<br \/>\nnot establish any loss under this head.\t They failed to show<br \/>\nthat  they exercised any right of forfeiture or claimed\t any<br \/>\nright  of  reversion  at  any time.  I\tsee  no\t reason\t for<br \/>\ndisturbing  the finding of the High Court and the  Tribunals<br \/>\nbelow on this point.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appellants submit that in view of the ephemeral  nature<br \/>\nof  their rights of reversion and forfeiture in\t respect  of<br \/>\nthe  lands  held  by the inferior  holders,  the  grants  of<br \/>\nvillages,  as  far  as\tthey  relate  to  those\t lands,\t are<br \/>\nassimilated to grants of land revenue.. They submit that the<br \/>\nHigh  Court and the Tribunals below while holding  that\t the<br \/>\nonly  right of the appellants in respect of those lands\t was<br \/>\nto  recover the assessments from the inferior holders,\thave<br \/>\ninconsistently and unjustly held that the grants were grants<br \/>\nof   inam villages and not of land revenue so as to  attract<br \/>\nthe bar of s.  17(5).  This submission is not  well-founded.<br \/>\nA grant of a village or\t land\twith   total   or    partial<br \/>\nexemption  from\t payment  of  land  revenue  is\t essentially<br \/>\ndifferent from a grant of land revenue, and the\t distinction<br \/>\nhas  been  preserved by the Act.  On the extinction  of\t the<br \/>\ngrant  of  land\t revenue, the inamdar loses  all  rights  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the grant, and he is therefore entitled to\tfull<br \/>\ncompensation  under  s.\t s. 17(1).  On the  other  hand,  on<br \/>\nabolition  of  the  grant of an inam village  or  land,\t the<br \/>\ninamdar\t is allowed to retain and enjoy various\t rights\t and<br \/>\nbenefits  arising out of the grant.  Section  5(2)(a)  gives<br \/>\nhim  the  rights of an occupant in respect of lands  in\t his<br \/>\nactual\tpossession or in possession of persons holding\tfrom<br \/>\nhim other than<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">422<\/span><br \/>\ninferior  holders.  The grants of inam lands, on their\ttrue<br \/>\nconstruction,  may  include the right to  mines\t or  mineral<br \/>\nproducts  see  Secretary  of State for\tIndia  v.  Shantaram<br \/>\nNaravan(1),  and  this\tright of the  inamdar,\tif  any,  is<br \/>\npreserved  by  s. 9 &#8216;of the Act.  By S. 10 of  the  Act\t the<br \/>\ninamdar\t holding  inam\tvillages or  lands  is\tentitled  to<br \/>\ncompensation  in  respect of any right or interest  in any<br \/>\nproperty  referred  to\tin  S. 7. He  is  also\tentitled  to<br \/>\ncompensation  under S. 17(1), but this right is\t subject  to<br \/>\nthe provisions of S. 17(5).  It will appear, therefore, that<br \/>\nthe  Act  treats  the  inams of\t the  two  ,categories\tvery<br \/>\ndifferently.   While  the holder of the inam  of  the  first<br \/>\ncategory  referred  to\tin s. 2(1)(e)(i)  suffers  from\t the<br \/>\ndisadvantage  of  the  bar  of\ts.  17\t(5)  in\t respect  of<br \/>\ncompensation, he enjoys numerous advantages which are denied<br \/>\nto the holder of the inam of the second category referred to<br \/>\nin s. 2(i)(e)(ii).\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeals fail, and are dismissed.  There will be no order<br \/>\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) (1925) 1. L. R. 49 Bom. 99.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">423<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Navinchandra Babubhai &#8230; vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1509, 1966 SCR (3) 412 Author: A Sarkar Bench: Sarkar, A.K. 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. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Navinchandra Babubhai ... vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Navinchandra Babubhai ... vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-13T18:32:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Navinchandra Babubhai &#8230; vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-13T18:32:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966\"},\"wordCount\":4188,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966\",\"name\":\"Navinchandra Babubhai ... vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-13T18:32:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Navinchandra Babubhai &#8230; vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Navinchandra Babubhai ... vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Navinchandra Babubhai ... vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-13T18:32:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Navinchandra Babubhai &#8230; vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966","datePublished":"1966-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-13T18:32:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966"},"wordCount":4188,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966","name":"Navinchandra Babubhai ... vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-13T18:32:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-babubhai-vs-bombay-revenue-tribunal-and-ors-on-21-january-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Navinchandra Babubhai &#8230; vs Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 21 January, 1966"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38344"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38344\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}