Civil Appeal Nos
2411 2427 and 2431 2440 of 1969
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 5 11 1968 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos
57063 629 and 63463
283 286 of 1966 and 287 296 and 300 30966
G A Shah and M N Shroff for the Appellant
D V Patel I N Shroff P V Hathi and H section Parihar for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
These twenty seven appeals by special leave directed against judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated November
5 1968 raise a common question and are therefore disposed of by this common judgment
The short question involved in these matters relates to interpretation of section 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act 1949 the Taluqdari Abolition Act and section 7 of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act 1952 the Personal Inams Abolition Act
In the present appeals certain facts are no longer in dispute
The respondents are the erstwhile taluqdars or inamdars what was known as Ghogha Mahal which now forms part of the Bhavnagar district
There were vast stretches of hilly tracts described as Dunger  which were incapable of cultivation but on which there was spontaneous growth of grass
These lands formed part of their taluqdari estates or inams
They used to sell the grass growing on these 236 lands and it was a definite source of income to them
It appears that the lands were recorded as Kharaba in the record of rights and therefore consequent upon the abolition of taluqdari rights by the Taluqdari Abolition Act and with the Abolition of inams under the Personal Inams Abolition Act the lands were recorded as having vested in The Government
Thereupon the respondents made separate claims before the Mahalkari Ghogha Mahal seeking a declaration under section 372 of the Bombay I and Revenue Code 1879 that the lands were neither vacant lands nor uncultivated lands and being in their possession they become the occupants thereof
In an enquiry held under section 32 the Mahalkari examined the claimants individually the village talatis and the relevant entries in the records of rights which showed that the taluqdars and inamdars were deriving income from the grass growing on the lands
It was also in evidence that considerable effort and expenses had to be incurred by them for securing the income of this grass ie by keeping watchmen etc
to see that unauthorised pasturing by cattle brought on land or trespassing on it did not destroy the growing grass but that it grew to full stature so as to give a fair and full yield
When operation for cutting of the grass used to commence the stubs were not cut off but were allowed to remain intact so that the next year after The rains the grass would grow naturally again
A portion of the grass lands were also kept apart by the respondents for the grazing of their cattle by fencing of the area
The Mahalkari Ghogha Mahal by his order dated October 28 1958 held on this evidence that the lands could not be treated as waste lands or uncultivated lands and since the respondents were in possession thereof they became the occupants
The Collector Bhavnagar in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision under section 211 of the Code by his order dated February 28 1961 set aside the orders of the Mahalkari and held in all these twenty seven cases that since the lands in question were not being cultivated by taluqdars or inamdars they must by reason of Explanation to section 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and Explanation to section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act be treated to be unoccupied lands  and therefore the lands vest in the Government
The Revenue Tribunal however by its two orders dated June 19 1962 and March 26 1965 reversed the order of the Collector and restored that of the Mahalkari holding the respondents to be the occupants of the lands in question
The State Government of Gujarat filed twenty seven writ petitions in the High Court for quashing the orders of the Revenue Tribunal
237 Agreeing with the Revenue Tribunal the High Court held that there was evidence that the lands in dispute were not lying desolate abandoned or barren with no vegetation but were in fact productive lands in the sense that grass grew naturally and so they could not be regarded as waste lands  although they were wrongly recorded as such
It also held that the hilly tracts on which grass grew naturally by their very nature were unfit for cultivation and therefore could not be treated as uncultivated lands 
It relied on the Explanation to the two sections and observed that it contemplates only those lands which could be cultivated but which were left fallow and uncultivated for a continuous period of three years
In its opinion the expressions waste lands  and uncultivated lands  therefore did not cover grass lands on hilly tracts which by their very nature are incapable of cultivation but which are not useless so as to be not capable of any use
The question for consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court was right in holding that the respondents who were taluqdars or inamdars were entitled to settlement of these grass lands on hilly tracts as occupants  thereof under section 51 b of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and section 52 b of the Inams Abolition Act
Before dealing with the judgment of the Court below it will be convenient to refer to the scheme of the two Acts and to set out the relevant sections
The provisions of the two Acts are identical in terms
It would source for our present purposes to generally refer to the provisions of the Taluqdari Abolition Act
The object and purpose of the Act as is clear from the preamble was to abolish the taluqdari rights as a measure of agrarian reform
Section 3 abolished the taluqdari tenure and extinguished all incidents of the tenure attached to any land comprised in a taluqdari estate save as provided in the Act
Under section 4 all revenue surveys and settlements made under section 4 of the Gujarat Taluqdars Act 1888 are deemed to have been made under Chapter VIII and VIII A of the Land Revenue Code
By section 51a all taluqdari lands are henceforth liable to the payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Code
The abolition of the taluqdari tenure however did not deprive the taluqdars of the lands in their possession and section 51b provides that a taluqdar holding any taluqdari land shall be deemed to be an occupant within the meaning of the Land Revenue Code or any other law for the time being in force
Than comes section 6 which provides that all public roads lanes etc
 not situate within the wants belonging to a taluqdar shall vest in the government and all rights 238 held by a taluqdar in such property shall be deemed to have been extinguished
Section 7 provides for payment of compensation to taluqdars for extinguishment of rights under section 6 Clause b i thereof provides that if the property acquired is waste or uncultivated but is culturable land  the amount of compensation shall not exceed three the assessment of the land
Section 14 provides for payment of compensation to taluqdars for extinguishment or modification of any other right where such extinguishment or Modification amounts to transference to public ownership of such lands or any right in and over such land ie in any land other than those in respect of which provision for the payment of compensation has been made under section 7
The scheme under the Personal Inams Abolition Act is more or less similar
Section 4 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any usage settlement grant sanad or order or a decree or order of a Court or any law for the time being in force 1 all personal inams shall be deemed to have been extinguished with effect from and on the appointed date 2 all rights legally subsisting on the said date in respect of such personal inams shall be deemed to have been extinguished save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of the Act
Similarly section 52 a provides that an inamdar in resect 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 clb shall be entitled to all the rights and shall be liable to all obligations in respect of such land as an occupant
Under clb an inferior holder holding an inam land is entitled to the same rights
Turning now to section 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and section 7 of the Personal Inams Abolition Act which are identical in terms the first thing to be noticed is that they deal with specific properties alone which arc enumerated therein and in which all the rights of the taluqdars or inamdars are completely extinguished
Section 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act reads 6
All public roads lanes and paths the bridges ditches dikes and fences on or beside the same the bed of the sea and of harbours creeks below high water mark and of rivers streams nallas lakes wells and tanks and all canals and water courses and all standing and flowing water all unbuilt village sit lands all waste lands and all uncultivated land excluding lands used for building or other non agricultural purposes which are not situate within the limits of the wantas belonging to a taluqdar in 239 taluqdari estate shall except in so far as any rights of any person other than the taluqdar may be established in and over the same and except as may otherwise be provided by any law for the time being in force vest in and shall be deemed to be with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto the property of the Government and all rights held by a taluqdar in such property shall be deemed to have been extinguished and it shall be lawful for the Collector subject to the general or special orders of the Commissioner to dispose them of as he deems fit subject always to the rights of way and of other rights of the public or individuals legally subsisting
Explanation For the purposes of this section land shall be deemed to be uncultivated if it has not been cultivated for a continuous period of three years immediately before the date on which this Act comes into force
Emphasis supplied On a fair reading of the section it would be evident that the vesting is in respect of properties which could be put to public use
It leaves the private properties of the taluqdar untouched
The legislative intent is manifested by clear enumeration of certain specific properties not situate within the wantas of a taluqdar
It begins by specifying All public roads lanes paths bridges etc  and ends up with all village site lands all waste lands and all uncultivated lands 
and these being public properties situate in a taluqdar s estate must necessarily vest in the Government because they are meant for public use
In spite of vesting of such property in the Government however the conferral of the rights of an occupant on a taluqdar under section 51b in respect of the lands in his actual possession is saved
Pausing there it is fair to observe that the words in parenthesis excluding lands used for building or other non agricultural purposes  exemplify the intention of the legislature not to deprive a taluqdar of such land even though such property is uncultivated land due to its inherent character as well as by reason of the Explanation
lt is therefore evident that the determination of the question whether a particular category of property belonging to a taluqdar in a taluqdari estate is vested in the Government or not and the determination of the question whether the rights held by a taluqdar in such property shall be deemed to have been extinguished or not will depend upon the category of that property
The expression all 240 waste lands  has been joined by conjunctive and  with the expression all uncultivated lands 
They therefore indicate two distinct types of lands
If the legislature had intended that the aforesaid expression should indicate one class of lands the expression rather would have been all waste and uncultivated lands  as against the expression all waste lands and all uncultivated lands were we have therefore two distinct categories of properties viz  1  waste lands and 2 uncultivated lands
The contention that the grass lands on hilly tracts which are incapable of cultivation were waste lands  or uncultivated lands  within the meaning of section 6 cannot be accepted
Now the expression waste lands  has a well defined legal connotation
It means lands which are desolate abandoned and not fit ordinarily for use building purposes
In Shorter oxford English Dictionary 3rd Ed vol 2 p 2510 the meaning of word waste  s given as 1
Waste or desert land uninhabited or sparsely inhabited and uncultivated country a wild and desolate region 2
A piece of land not cultivated or used for any purpose and producing little or no herbage or wood
In legal use a piece of such land not in any man s occupation but lying common
A devastated region
 In the sequence in which the expression waste lands  appears in the two relevant sections it cannot but have its ordinary etymological meaning as given in the Shorter oxford Dictionary ie land lying desolate or useless without trees or grass or vegetation not capable of any use
In Rajanand Bramha Shah vs State of Uttar Pradesh  Ors this Court while discerning the meaning of waste and arable land  in section 174 Of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 observed that the expression waste land  as contrasted to arable land  would mean land  which is unfit for cultivation and habitation desolate and barren land with little or no vegetation thereon
To the same effect is the decision in Ishwarlal Girdharilal Joshi etc
vs State of Gujarat  Anr
It is clear that these grass lands on hilly tracts were not waste lands
They were productive lands in the sense that grass grew naturally and so they were not desolate abandoned or barren waste lands with no vegetation
The expression waste lands  in the context would be clearly in the original sense of the term waste  as 241 meaning barren or desolate lands which are unfit for any use or which are worthless
That test is not clearly fulfilled
The appellants alternative contention raises primarily the question whether upon a proper construction of section 6 these grass lands on hilly tracts were uncultivated lands
That depends upon the terms of the section
The expression uncultivated lands  in section 6 must in the context in which it appears mean cultivable but not cultivated  ie fit for cultivation but allowed to lie fallow
It is uncultivable or unfit for cultivation
The Explanation below section 6 has a two fold function
The purpose of the Explanation first is to explain the meaning of the expression uncultivated lands  in the substantive provision
It then seeks to curtail the effect of the section
It is a key for ascertaining the meaning of the expression uncultivated lands 
Without the Explanation any land lying uncultivated on the date of the vesting even for a year
ie allowed to lie fallow according to the normal agricultural practice would vest in the Government
But then the Explanation steps in and seeks to mitigate the rigour
It says that the land allowed to lie fallow continuously for a period of three years shall alone be deemed to be uncultivated land meaning thereby that a piece of land allowed to lie fallow intermittently for a period of less than three years will not be deemed uncultivated lands 
In that view of the matter the grass lands on hilly tracts which ere incapable of any cultivation could not in law be treated to be uncultivated lands  within the meaning of section 6 read with the Explanation thereto
There seems to be no doubt on the facts of the case that there were no such basic operations as tilling of the land sowing or disseminating of seeds and planting of grass
The subsequent operations ie operations performed after the grass grew on the land eg the act of securing the income of this grass by engaging watchmen etc
to see that unauthorised pasturing by cattle brought on land or trespassing on it did not destroy the growing grass but that it grew to full stature so as to give a fair and full yield or when operations for cutting off the grass used to commence the act of tending the stubs so that they were not cut off but were allowed to remain intact so that the next year after the rains the grass would grow naturally again by themselves would not be tantamount to cultivation of the land
242 In our opinion the High Court as well as the Revenue Tribunal were therefore right in holding that the disputed lands did not vest in tile government under section of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and section 7 of the Personal Inams Abolition Act
In reaching
that conclusion we cannot but take into consideration the fact that the Acts make no provision whatever for payment of any compensation for the acquisition of the rights of the former taluqdars and inamdars in such lands
They are not entitled to any compensation either under section 71bi of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and section 101 b i of the Personal Inams Abolition Act
These provisions speak of the extinguishment of any right or interest in land which is waste or uncultivated but is culturable 
The lands in question not being fit for cultivation were not culturable  and
therefore they do not fall within the ambit of these provisions
If the contention of the appellant were to prevail it would lead to an anomalous position
It would have the effect of taking these lands out of the purview of section 14 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and section 17 of the Personal Inams Abolition Act though such lands are not governed by section 71bi of the former Act and section 101i of the latter Act
This would result in deprivation of property without payment of compensation
Our attention was drawn to the decision in Ambabai Janhavibai vs State of Maharashtra
1 That judgment proceeds on the footing that there was a conflict between section S and section 7 of the Personal Inams Abolition Act
There is no basis for this assumption
Further the observation that since it is admitted that no agricultural operations were carried out on the lands for the purpose of raising or growing grass on the lands  the contention that the lands on which grass grew naturally could not be said to be uncultivated cannot be accepted  even though the inamdars were making use of these lands and were realising income by selling the grass which grew thereon appears to proceed on a wrongful assumption that the sine qua non for the applicability of section 5 was actual cultivation
This observation in our view cannot be supported
In the result these appeals must fail and are dismissed with costs
PBR Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The object and purpose of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act 1949 and the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act 1952 was to abolish taluqdari and inamdari rights as a measure of agrarian reform
Section 6 of the former Act and section 7 of the latter Act both of which are identical in terms provide that among others  all unbuilt village site lands all waste lands and all uncultivated lands excluding lands used for building or other non agricultural purposes which are not situate within the limits of the wantas  shall vest in the Government
The Explanation to this section provides for the purposes of this section land shall be deemed to be uncultivated if it has nor been cultivated for a continuous period of three years immediately before the date on which this Act comes into force
 The respondents were former Taluqdars and Inamdars
Vast stretches of hilly tracks which were incapable of cultivation but on which there was spontaneous growth of grass formed part of the taluqdari estates and inams
When grass was cut from these lands care was taken not to cut stubs but they were allowed to remain in tact so that in the following year grass grew with the onset of rains
The respondents secured income from the grass grown on the lands for earning income they kept watchmen so that unauthorised pasturing by cattle did not destroy the growing grass
With the abolition of the taluqdari rights and inams the lands were regarded as having vested in the Government
The respondents thereupon sought a declaration that the lands were neither vacant lands nor uncultivated lands and being in their possession they became the occupants thereof
The Mahalkari held that the lands were not waste lands or uncultivated lands and since the respondents were in possession thereof they became occupants
The Collector reversed this order and held that by reason of Explanation to section 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and Explanation to section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act the lands should be treated as unoccupied lands and therefore they vested in tho Government
The Revenue Tribunal reversed the order of the Collector
On further appeal the High Court held that the land were productive lands in the sense that grass grew naturally and that the Explanation contemplates only those lands which could be cultivated but which were left fallow and uncultivated for a continuous period of three years 234 Dismissing the appeals  HELD 1
The High Court as well as the Revenue Tribunal were right in holding that the disputed lands did not vest in the Government under section 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act
242A 2
It would be evident from section 6 that the vesting is in respect of properties which could be put to public use
It leaves private properties of the taluqdars untouched
Public properties situate in a taluqdar s estate vested in the Government because they were meant for public use
In spite of vesting of such property in the Government the conferral of the rights of an occupant on a taluqdar under section 51b in respect of the lands in his actual possession is saved
239D F 3
The contention that the grass lands on hilly tracks which were incapable of cultivation were waste lands and uncultivated lands within the meaning of section 6 cannot be accepted
The expression all waste lands has been joined by the conjunction and with the expression all uncultivated lands
They indicate two distinct types of lands
If the legislature had intended that the aforesaid expression should indicate one class of lands the expression would have been all waste and uncultivated lands as against the expression all waste and uncultivated lands
There are therefor two distinct categories of properties viz waste lands and uncultivated lands
240A B 4
The expression waste lands means lands which are desolate abandoned and not fit ordinarily for use for building purposes
In the sequence in which the expression waste lands appears in the two sections it cannot but have its ordinary etymological meaning viz lands Lying desolate or useless without trees or grass or vegetation not capable of any use
240C Rajanand Brahma Shah vs State of UP  Ors   Ishwarlal Girdharilal Joshi etc
vs State of Gujarat  Anr
   referred to
The grass lands on hilly tracts were not waste lands
They were productive lands in the sense that grass grew naturally and so they were not desolate abandoned or barren waste lands with no vegetation
The expression waste lands in the context would be clearly in the original sense of the term waste as meaning barren or desolate lands which are unfit for any use or worthless
That test is not clearly satisfied
240H b The expression uncultivated lands in section 6 must in the context m which it appears means cultivable but not cultivated allowed to lie fallow
It is uncultivable or unfit for cultivation
241B 6
The Explanation below section 6 has a two fold function 1 to explain the meaning of the expression uncultivated lands in the substantive provision and 2 it is a key for ascertaining the meaning of the expression uncultivated lands
Without the Explanation any land Lying uncultivated on the date of the vesting even for a year ie allowed to lie fallow according to the normal agricultural practice would vest in the Government
But the Explanation steps in and seeks to mitigate the rigour
It says that the land allowed to lie fallow continuously for a period of three years shall alone be deemed to be uncultivated land
meaning there by that a piece of land allowed to lie 235 fallow intermittently for a period of less than three years will not be deemed uncultivated lands 
241 C E 7
In the instant case there were no basic operations as tilling of the land sowing or disseminating of seeds and planting of grass
The subsequent operations viz the act of securing the income of the grass by engaging watchmen etc
by themselves would not tantamount to cultivation of the land
241G 8
The Acts make no provision for payment of compensation for the acquisition of the rights of the former Taluqdar and Inamdars in such lands
Section 7 of the former Act and section 10 of the latter Act speak of the extinguishment of any right or interest in land which is waste or uncultivated but is culturable
The lands in question not benefit for cultivation were not culturable and therefore they do not fall within the ambit of these provisions
If the contention of the appellants were to prevail it would have the effect of taking these lands out of the purview of section 14 of the former Act and section 17 of the latter Act though such lands are not governed by section 17 and section 10 respectively
This would result in deprivation of property without payment of compensation
242B D