Jayantrao Amratrao Pradhan Vs.
Parthasarthy, Collector of Kaira District & Ors [1986] INSC 54 (1 April
1986)
MADON, D.P. MADON, D.P. SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION: 1986 AIR 2153 1986 SCR (2) 1 1986
SCC (3) 507 JT 1986 333 1986 SCALE (1)644
ACT:
Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 -
Section 22 and Resumption Rules 1908, Rule 4 - Service inam lands Jurisdiction
of Collector to determine title of land - Liability incurred under an incident
of a patel watan prior to April 1, 1963 - Necessity for.
HEADNOTE:
Much more than a century ago the appellant's
ancestor Malharrao was granted 74 acres and 10 gunthas of lands by the
Government, revenue assessment of which was Rs. 557, for founding a village
called Malharpura. He was also appointed 'Patel' of the newly founded village
and in lieu of remuneration therefor the lands were exempted from land revenue
assessment. The annual remuneration for 'patelship' would have been only Rs.
67, but the entire land revenue assessment was treated as the annual
remuneration of 'patelship' resulting in Malharrao annually receiving Rs. 490
more remuneration in the shape of non-payment of land revenue assessment.
In or about 1901 lands admeasuring 31 acres
and 18 gunthas were taken away by the Government from the lands granted to
Malharrao, without paying any compensation. The Commissioner (N.D.) was
directed to arrange a reasonable settlement for transfer of the lands on such
terms as the patel was willing to accept. Proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 were initiated which resulted in the Government granting
certain lands to the 'patel'.
3. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal sent a
notice to the appellant's father to show cause why the land held by him should
not be sold to the tenants as provided by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948. The appellant intimated the Collector that the lands held by
him were a service inam and the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act 1874 had 2 been
applied to them as they were given to him as remuneration for services and,
therefore, they were not liable to be proceeded against under the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
4. The Collector by his order dated March 21,
1964, directed that plots of land admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas held by
the appellant were to be considered as Service Inam land and the remaining
plots of lands were to be resumed and entered in the name of the State
Government under Rule 4 of Resumption Rules, 1908. The lands which were held to
be Service Inam lands were to be dealt with under the Gujarat Patel Watan
Abolition Act, 1961, with effect from the April 1, 1963.
5. An appeal was filed against this order of
the Collector which was dismissed by the Special Secretary to the State
Government. The appellant challenged the orders of the Collector and the
Special Secretary under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the petition was
dismissed.
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the
appellant it was contended : (i) that the original grant was not a grant of the
soil but of the revenue of the land and, therefore, the land was not liable to
be resumed either under the Abolition Act or under the Resumption Rules 1908;
(ii) that the lands granted by the Government
to the appellant's predecessor under s. 32 of the Land Acquisition Act in lieu
of the lands acquired could not be the subject- matter of watan and were,
therefore not liable to resumption; (iii) that as the Abolition Act came into
force on April 1, 1963, the watan rights in the lands stood abolished on and
from that day and, therefore, when the Collector passed his order dated March
21, 1964, the land had ceased to be watan lands and no lands were available for
resumption and, therefore, no order under the Resumption Rules, 1908, could
have been made on March 21, 1964 and (iv) that the proceedings pending before
the Collector on April 1, 1963 were not of the nature mentioned in s. 22 of the
Abolition Act and, therefore, they were not saved by the provisions of that
section.
Dismissing the appeal, 3 ^
HELD : 1. Two things which are saved by s. 22
of the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 are : (i) an obligation or
liability already incurred under an incident of a patel watan before the
appointed day, that is, April 1, 1963 and (ii) a proceeding or remedy in
respect of such obligation or liability. [15 E-F]
2. Under Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules 1908,
the Collector had the power to determine whether the remuneration for the
performance of the service derived from the profits of the enjoyment of patel
watan land was unnecessarily high or not and if it was unnecessarily high, to
resume the whole or part of such land. [15 G; 16 A]
3. The proceedings which were pending before
the Collector on April 1, 1963 were in respect of a liability which had already
been incurred under an incident of a patel watan prior to April 1, 1963, this
liability being that those lands or a part thereof were not liable to be
resumed inasmuch as the remuneration received by the patel in respect of the
services performed by him was wholly disproportionate to the remuneration
actually payable for such services. The proceedings before the Collector thus
fell within the express terms of s. 22 and under that section they could be
continued after the Abolition Act came into force as if the Abolition Act had
not been passed. The Collector was, therefore, entitled in law to continue
those proceedings and to pass a final order in such proceedings as he did by
his impugned order dated March 21, 1964. [16 D-G]
4. The grant made to Malharrao by the
Government was a grant of soil and not of the revenue of the land and those
lands were, therefore, liable to resumption. [13 D]
5. The lands which the appellant's
predecessor got in lieu of lands which were acquired by the Government were of
the same nature and class as the lands which had been acquired. [14 D]
6. Under Rule 1 of the Resumption Rules 1908
the Collector could at any time institute an enquiry into the title by which
any land held for service was enjoyed. The jurisdiction of the Collector to
determine the title to the 4 lands was invoked by the appellant's father, as a
result of which an enquiry was instituted by the Collector and notice thereof
was given to him. In the notice it was expressly stated that the hearing would
be about the classification of patel lands and the steps to be taken according
to Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908. Even if the statement relating to the
steps to be taken according to Rule 4 was inserted later in the notice, the
appellant's father and the appellant had full knowledge of it and had enough
opportunity to put forward their case with respect to the proposed resumption
of their lands. [16 A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No.1446 of 1971.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4th
October, 1971 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A.No. 718 of 1964.
V.A. Bobde, A.G. Ratnaparkhi, S.D. Mudaliar
and Miss Alamjeet Chauhan for the Appellant.
G.A. Shah, S.K. Sabharwal, C.V. Subba Rao and
R.N. Poddar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADON, J. The Appellant was the holder of large plots of land. By his order
dated March 21, 1964, the Collector, Kaira District, directed that plots of
land admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas were to be considered as Service Inam
land class vi(a) assigned for remuneration in respect of Patel's service of
village Malarpura, Taluka Matar, and the remaining plots of lands were to be
resumed and entered in the name of the Government of Gujarat under Rule 4 of
the Resumption Rules, 1908, and steps for their disposal should be taken separately
by the competent authority. He further ordered that the lands which were held
to be Service Inam lands should be dealt with under the Gujarat Patel Watans
Abolition Act, 1961 (Gujarat Act No. XLVIII of 1961) (hereinafter referred to
as "the Abolition Act"), with effect from April 1, 1963. Against the
said order of the Collector, the Appellant filed an appeal before the
Commissioner of 5 Revenue, Ahmedabad Division, but as the office of the
Commissioner was abolished, the said appeal was transferred to and heard by the
Special Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Revenue and Agricultural
Department, Ahmedabad, who dismissed it by his order dated August 4, 1964.
Thereupon the Appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in the Gujarat High Court being Special Civil Application
No.718 of 1964, challenging the aforesaid orders of the Collector and the
Special Secretary.
The said writ petition was dismissed by a
Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by its judgment and order dated
October 4, 1969. On an application made by the Appellant the High Court granted
a certificate of appeal under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Article 133 of
the Constitution, prior to the amendment of the said clause by the Constitution
(Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972, certifying that the judgment and final order
of the High Court involved directly or indirectly a claim or question
respecting property of the value of not less than twenty thousand rupees.
In order to appreciate the points argued at
the hearing of this Appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts which led to
the passing of the impugned order of the Collector dated March 21, 1964. Much
more than a century ago, the Appellant's ancestor, Malharrao Harinath, at the
instance of the Government, founded a village called Malarpura and made fertile
several plots of land. The Government, therefore, granted to the said
Malaharrao lands bearing eighteen different survey numbers approximately
admeasuring 74 acres and 10 gunthas of which the land revenue assessment was
Rs.557. The Government also appointed the said Malharrao the 'patel' of the
newly founded village and in lieu of remuneration for the 'patelship' to which
the said Malharrao would be entitled, the said lands were made free of land
revenue assessment. In accordance with the terms of the Government Resolution
No.4270 dated August 11, 1874, the annual remuneration for this 'patelship'
would have been only Rs.67 but in the case of the said Malharrao the entire
land revenue assessment was treated as the annual remuneration of Malharrao's
'patelship' with the result that the said Malharrao annually received in the
shape of non- payment of land revenue assessment Rs.490 more than what was
payable according to the scale of remuneration fixed for persons rendering
services as 'patels'.
6 In or about 1901 certain lands admeasuring
31 acres and 18 gunthas were taken away by the Government from the lands
granted to the said Malharrao, without paying any compensation, for the purpose
of improving and enlarging the irrigation tank in Village Goblaj. Ultimately,
it was resolved that the Commissioner (N.D.) should be requested to arrange a
reasonable settlement for the transfer of the said lands to the Government on
terms which the 'patel' was willing to accept and to report to the Government
the amount of such compensation. Thereupon, proceedings were commenced under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the said lands. Against the award
made by the Land Acquisition Officer a reference was filed which was heard and
decided by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, who directed the total amount
awarded as compensation to be invested in the manner provided in section 32 of
the Land Acquisition Act. Against the order of the Extra Assistant Judge,
appeals were filed in the Bombay High Court both by the claimant in the said
reference and the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court confirmed the order
of the Extra Assistant Judge with a slight modification. The compensation was,
however, not paid in cash but the Government granted to the 'patel' certain
lands in lieu of such compensation.
Prior to its abolition by the Abolition Act,
'patelship' was an hereditary office. "Hereditary Office" is defined
by section 4 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (Bombay Act No. III of
1874) as follows :
"'Hereditary Office' means every office
held hereditarily for the performance of duties connected with the
administration or collection of public revenue or with the village police, or
with the settlement of boundaries, or other matters of civil administration.
The expression includes such office even where the services originally
appertaining to it have ceased to be demanded.
The watan property, if any, and the
hereditary office and the rights and privileges attached to them together
constitute the watan." The same section 4 defines "watan
property" in the following terms :
7 " 'watan property' means the moveable
or immovable property held, acquired, or assigned for providing remuneration
for the performance of the duty appertaining to an hereditary office. It
includes a right to levy customary fees or perquisites, in money or in kind,
whether at fixed times or otherwise.
It includes cash payments in addition to the
original watan property made voluntarily by the State Government and subject
periodically to modification or withdrawal." Claims against the Government
on account of 'inams' and other estates wholly or partially exempt from payment
of land revenue in certain territories in the Bombay Presidency were excluded
from the cognizance of ordinary civil courts.
The Bombay Rent-Free Estates Act, 1852 (Act
No. XI of 1852), was passed so that such claims could be determined.
Section 4 of the said Act provided as follows
:
"4. Determination of titles of claimants
to exemption.- In the adjudication of claims to exempt lands or interests
therein, the titles of claimants shall be determined by the rules in Schedule B
annexed to this Act." Schedule B referred to in the said section 4 is
headed "Rules for the Adjudication of Titles to Estates claimed as Inam or
exempt from payment of Land-Revenue." Under Rule 10 of Schedule B to the
Bombay Rent-Free Estates Act, 1852, the rules contained in the said Schedule
were not necessarily applicable to jagirs, saranjams or other tenures for
service to the Crown or tenures of a political nature, and the titles and
continuance of such jagirs, saranjams and tenures were to be determined under
such rules as the Provincial Government may find it necessary to issue from time
to time. Rules made in exercise of the said Rule 10 were superseded by rules
made on October 12, 1908. Under Rule 8 1 of the 1908 Rules, an inquiry into the
title by which any land held for service was enjoyed could be instituted from
time to time by such officer as the Government may direct.
The only other relevant rule for our purpose
is Rule 4 of the 1908 Rules which provides as follows :
"(4) Service lands which do not fall
under No. 2 and No. 3 of these rules shall be continued subject to the provision
of the Bombay Act III of 1874, and of any other law for the time being in
force, relating thereto, to the heirs to the present holders or in the event of
the same being any time lawfully alienated, to the heirs of the alienators
without restriction as to adoption or female or collateral succession but such
land shall be resumed in default of any heir in whom, in the ordinary course of
descent, the deceased holder's private property would vest and shall not be
liable to be dealt with under the ordinary law for the time being in force
relating to intestate property. Provided that if the Collector is at any time
satisfied that the service in respect of which any such lands are held is no
longer performed or that its performance is no longer necessary or that for the
service performed the remuneration derived from the profits of the enjoyment of
such lands is unnecessarily high, or in the case of service lands to which the
provisions of Bombay Act III of 1874 did not apply, if it shall appear that the
holder has been guilty of any serious offence or misconduct, or that such lands
or any part thereof or any of the profits thereof have or has by succession or
otherwise, come into the possession of a female or any person other than the
person who for the time being is duly authorised to perform and does actually
perform the service in respect of which such lands are held, the Collector may
in his discretion direct either (1) the resumption of such lands or (2) the
continuance of the same subject to such new conditions as he shall deem fit to
impose or (3) the resumption of portion of such land and the continuance of the
rest thereof, suject to such conditions as aforesaid." 9 To continue with
our narrative, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Mehmedabad, sent a notice to
the Appellant's father which was received by him on July 1, 1960, to show cause
why the lands held by him should not be sold to the tenants as provided by the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948).
The Appellant thereafter by his application dated July 3, 1960, addressed to
the Collector, District Kaira, stated that the lands held by him were a service
inam and the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act had been applied to them as they
were given to him as remuneration for services and, therefore, they were not
liable to be proceeded against under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act. By the said application, the Appellant's father requested the Collector to
order the Memlatdar to give instruction to the Talati of various villages to
enter in the land records clearly the words "village servants useful to
Government" as also to issue directions to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal
not to send any intimation or notice to him for selling any land of this nature.
By his reply dated July 12, 1960, the Collector intimated to the Appellant's
father that the matter was under consideration. Thereafter, the Collector,
District Kaira, sent a notice dated December 31, 1962, to the Appellant's
father. The relevant part of the said notice is as follows :
" Subject :- About the classification of
Patlai lands, Malarpura, taluka-Matar.
Sir, It is intimated that you will remain
present at 12.00 noon on 2nd January 1963 with all evidence and with whatever
you have to say about the determination of the amount of lands which you held
as Vatan Inam lands according to your statement which lands are from the
villages of Malarpura, taluka Matar.
(About the steps that are to be taken
according to the rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908)," According to the
Appellant, on January 2, 1963, a Chitnis by the name of Desai took the said
notice from the Appellant and took it to the Collector and in the presence of
the Collector 10 added the words reproduced in brackets in the above extract.
The hearing before the Collector was
adjourned from time to time and ultimately, after hearing the advocate for the
Appellant, the Collector, District Kaira, passed the impugned order dated March
21, 1964.
It will be convenient at this stage to notice
the relevant provisions of the Abolition Act. The Abolition Act received the
assent of the President on November 24, 1961, and it was published in the
Gujarat Government Gazette on December 6, 1961. The Abolition Act was brought
into force on April 1, 1963. Under section 4 of the Abolition Act, patel watans
were abolished, the office of patel was made non-hereditary and all watan lands
were resumed and were to be subject to the payment of land revenue under the
provisions of the relevant land revenue code and the rules made thereunder, as
if such lands were unalienated land.
Under section 5, in the case of a grant of
watan land which is not a grant of soil and is held subject to a total or
partial exemption from payment of land revenue, the resumption is to be by levy
of full assessment and the holder is deemed to be an occupant of the land.
Certain definitions given in section 2 may also be noticed. They are the
definitions of the terms "existing watan law", "hereditary
patelship", and "Patel watan" given in clauses (6), (7) and (11)
of the Abolition Act. These definitions are as follows :
"(6) 'existing watan law' includes any
enactment, ordinance, rule, bye-law, regulation, order notification or any
other instrument, having the force of law relating to a patel watan and in
force immediately before the appointed day;
(7) 'hereditary patelship' means every
village office of a revenue or police patel held hereditarily under the
existing waten law for the performance of duties connected with the
administration or collection of the public revenue of a village or with the
village police or with the settlement of boundaries or other matters of civil
administration of a village and includes such office even where the services
originally appertaining to it have ceased to be demanded;
11 (11) 'Patel watan' means a watan held
under the existing watan law for the performance of duties appertaining to the
hereditary patelship, whether any commutation settlement in respect of such
patel watan has or has not been effected".
Section 3 of the Abolition Act provides as
follows :
"3. Powers of Collector to decide
certain questions and appeal.- (1) If any question arises.- (a) whether any
land is watan land, (b) whether any person is a watandar, matadar or
representative watandar, (c) whether any person is an unauthorised holder or
authorised holder, (d) whether any grant is a patel watan and if so whether it
is a grant of soil or grant of exemption from payment of land revenue or a
grant of land revenue only, the Collector shall, after giving the party
affected an opportunity to be heard and after holding an inquiry, decide the
question.
(2) Any person aggrieved by such decision may
file an appeal to the State Government within ninety days of such decision.
(3) The decision of the Collector, subject to
an appeal under sub-section (2), and the decision of the State Government in
appeal under sub-section (2) shall be final." The Abolition Act also
contains provisions for re-grant of watan land either to the holder of the
watan or to authorized holders and it also provides that if any watan land has
been lawfully leased and such lease was subsisting on the date of the coming
into force of the Abolition Act, the provisions of the tenancy law would apply
to the said lease.
12 The first point urged at the hearing of
this Appeal was that the original grant was not a grant of the soil but of the
revenue of the land and, therefore, the said lands were not liable to be
resumed either under the Abolition Act or under the Resumption Rules, 1908. It
is an admitted position that neither the original grant nor its copy was
traceable.
In support of his submission, learned Counsel
for the Appellant, therefore, relied upon a letter dated July 12, 1912, from
the Under Secretary to the Government of Bombay, to the Commissioner (N.D.),
written in connection with the compensation to be allowed for the lands
admeasuring 31 acres and 18 gunthas taken by the Government for the improvement
and enlargement of the Goblaj tank. This was also the only piece of evidence
relied upon by the Appellant before the Collector, the Special Secretary and
the High Court. Far from supporting the Appellant's case, the said letter
negatives it. It inter alia states that "the whole of the land consisting
of 18 survey numbers and measuring 74 acres 10 gunthas and originally assessed
at Rs. 557 has been assigned to the Patel of Malharpura, taluka Matar, for his
remuneration". It is also stated in the said letter that "Under the
Government Resolution No. 3969, dated 15th June, 1898, no cash compensation is
to be paid on account of land assigned for village servants useful to
Government". It is further stated in the said letter as follows :
"Malharrao appears to have been given
about 100 bighas of land for his enterprise in establishing a new village and
bringing waste land under cultivation, and this land of the..appears to have
been converted subsequently into Patel's service inam land under the then
Collector's vernaintar order dated 5th August, 1842. This original order is not
traceable but its substance is known from the village inward and outward
register of the time." The said letter, therefore, clearly shows that it
was not the revenue of the said land which was assigned to Malharrao but the
land itself. Further, there are on the record categorical admissions made by
the Appellant's father that what was given to Malharrao was land and not the
revenue of the land. In his said application dated July 3, 1960, made to 13 the
Collector, District Kaira, the Appellant's father had stated that he was
"holding lands of service inam". In the said application he had
further stated as follows :
"Besides, the Hereditary Offices Act has
been applied to lands 'village servants useful to Government' and those lands
have been given to me as remuneration for services." The Appellant had
also given a statement which was reproduced in the said application. In the
said statement it was stated, "We are doing Mukhiship of village
Malarpura, taluka Matar (hereditary). We did not get any salary from the treasury
for this service but Government has given some lands for remuneration."
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Collector, the Appellant's
father had also given to the State of Gujarat a notice dated March 11, 1963,
under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In that notice also it was stated, "In
appreciation of the venturesome work of my ancestor 74 acres and 10 gunthas of
lands were given to my said ancestor by the Government and that was as Inam or
gift". There is, therefore, no doubt that the grant made to Malharrao by
the Government was a grant of soil and not of the revenue of the land and the
said lands were, therefore, liable to resumption.
The next point which was urged before this
Court was that the lands granted by the Government to the Appellant's
predecessor under section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act in lieu of the lands
acquired under the said Act could not be the subject-matter of watan and were,
therefore, not liable to resumption. This contention again is negatived by the
express admissions made by the Appellant and his father. In the said
application dated July 3, 1960, the Appellant had stated that these lands were
"of the same nature as the lands acquired, namely, village servants useful
to Government". In the said notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the case made out by the Appellant's father with respect to these
lands was as follows :
" Thereupon the additional compensation
was invested in Government bonds and the Government bonds were kept in
Government possession. As and 14 when the said lands were purchased, the
vendors were paid by selling bonds of required amount. I had purchased from it
Government fallow lands and Government had taken prices from the said bonds of
mine.
In that way I had purchased from Government
nearly 59 acres and 8 gunthas of land in village Goblaj, Kajipura, Dedarda and
Kaira. In all I had purchased 36 acres 12 gunthas of lands Malarpura, Kaira,
Dedarda, Samarda, Vasan Khurd, Parsantaj, Naika, Pansoli, Kanera, Antroli Punaj
and Chanindra and Government converted the same into Inam service land and
therefore the lands purchased in this and previous lands in my possession are
of the same class and all these lands are of my possession and ownership."
Thus, there can be no doubt that the lands which the Appellant's predecessor
got in lieu of lands which were acquired by the Government were of the same
nature and class as the lands which had been acquired.
The third point which was urged was that
notice of the resumption proceedings was not given to the Appellant or his
father as required by law. This is again factually incorrect. The said notice
dated December 31, 1962, clearly stated that the presence of the Appellant's
father was also required "about the steps that are to be taken according
to the rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908." Assuming that the said words
were added later in the letter by the Chitnis in the presence of the Collector
on January 2, 1963, the proceedings before the Collector were adjourned time
and again, and, in fact, when an application for adjournment was made before
the Collector by the Appellant's advocate on Junuary 31, 1963, the purpose for
which such adjournment was required was stated in the said application as being
to enable the advocate to obtain information about the Resumption Rules. It may
be mentioned that this point was not even argued before the High Court. Thus,
there is no substance in this contention and it also requires to be rejected.
15 The fourth and the last point which was
urged was that as the Abolition Act came into force on April 1, 1963, the watan
rights in the lands in question stood abolished on and from that day and,
therefore, when the Collector passed his impugned order dated March 21, 1964,
the said lands had ceased to be watan lands and no lands were available for
resumption and accordingly, therefore, no order under the Resumption Rules,
1908, could have been made on March 21, 1964. It was further submitted that the
proceedings pending before the Collector on April 1, 1963, were not of the
nature mentioned in section 22 of the Abolition Act and, therefore, they were
not saved by the provisions of the said section. There is equally no substance
in this connection.
Section 22 provides as follows:
22. Savings. - Nothing contained in this Act
shall affect –
(i) any obligations or liability already
incurred under an incident of a patel watan before the appointed day, or (ii)
any proceedings or remedy in respect of such obligation or liability, and any
such proceeding may be continued or any such remedy may be enforced as if this
Act had not been passed." Thus, there are two things which are saved by
section 22, namely, (i) an obligation or liability already incurred under an
incident of a patel watan before the appointed day, that is, April 1, 1963, and
(ii) a proceeding or remedy in respect of such obligation or liability. Under
Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908, it was an incident of a patel watan that
if the Collector was at any time satisfied that the remuneration derived from
the profits of the enjoyment of watan lands was unnecessarily high, he might in
his discretion either direct resumption of such lands or the continuance of the
same subject to such new conditions as he might deem fit to impose or the
resumption of a portion of such lands and the continuance of the rest subject
to such conditions which he might deem fit to impose. Under the said Rule 4 the
Collector had the power to determine whether the remuneration for the 16
performance of the service derived from the profits of the enjoyment of patel
watan land was unnecessarily high or not and if it was unnecessarily high, to
resume the whole or part of such land. Under Rule 1 of the Resumption Rules,
1908, the Collector could at any time institute an inquiry into the title by
which any land held for service was enjoyed. The jurisdiction of the Collector
to determine the title to the lands in question was, in fact, invoked by the
Appellant's father by his said application dated July 3, 1960. It was as a
result of the said application that the inquiry was instituted by the Collector
and notice thereof was given to the Appellant's father by the Collector by the
said letter dated December 31, 1962. In the said letter, an express statement
was made that the hearing would be about the classification of patel lands at
Malarpura and the steps to be taken according to Rule 4 of the Resumption
Rules, 1908. Even if the statement relating to the steps to be taken according
to the said Rule 4 was inserted later in the said notice dated December 31,
1962, as shown earlier the Appellant's father and the Appellant had full
knowledge of it and had enough opportunity to put forward their case with
respect to the proposed resumption of the said lands. The proceedings, therefore,
which were pending before the Collector on April 1, 1963, were in respect of a
liability which had already been incurred under an incident of a patel watan
prior to April 1, 1963, this liability being that the said lands or a part
thereof were liable to be resumed inasmuch as the remuneration received by the
patel in respect of the services performed by him was wholly disproportionate
to the remuneration actually payable for such service. The proceedings before
the Collector thus fell within the express terms of the said section 22 and
under that section they could be continued after the Abolition Act came into
force as if the Abolition Act had not been passed.
The Collector was, therefore, entitled in law
to continue the said proceedings and to pass a final order in such proceedings
as he did by his impugned order dated March 21, 1964.
For the reasons mentioned above, this Appeal
must fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
A.P.J. Appeal dismissed.
Back
