Appeal No 37 of 1965
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 12 1958 of the Bombay High Court at Rajkot now Gujarat High Court in special civil Application No 55 of 1957
B Sen PV Hathi KL Hathi and Atiqur Rehman for the appellant
MV Goswami for respondents Nos 1 2 3 6 and 7
NS Bindra and SP Nayar for respondents Nos 26 and 27
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
This appeal raises questions of interpretation of certain provisions of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act 1951 Act No XXV of 1951
On June 1 1947 Narendrasinghji the then ruler of the Virpur State granted certain agricultural lands situate within the State to the appellant his paternal uncle
On February 11 1948 Narendrasinghji and the appellant effected an exchange under which the appellant returned the lands at Matiya and Guda to Narendrasinghji and in lieu thereof was granted certain lands in Kharedi
The lands in Kharedi are the subjectmatter of dispute in this litigation
On February 17 1948 the grant was recorded in the Hak Patrak  of the Virpur State
On March 8 1948 the administration of the Virpur State was assumed by the United State of Saurashtra
The grant to the appellant was questioned by the Saurashtra Government
Thereafter at a conference called the Jamnagar Conference it was arranged between Narendrasinghji and the Government of India that the lands 407 in Kharedi should be regarded as lawfully granted to the appellant subject to the condition that the grantee would not evict the cultivators from the land
The arrangement was set out in a letter dated November 2 1949 from the officer on special duty Integration Political Dept to the Secretary Revenue Department United State of Saurashtra
The letter stated According to the Jamnagar Conference decision as this grant was an exchange it was acceptable after verification regarding reasonableness of the exchange
It having been decided on enquiry that the exchange was reasonable the grant is accepted subject however to the liability of the grantee a to pay 1212  as assessment b to see that no cultivator shall be evicted from the land 
The grantee KS Digvijaysinghji may kindly be informed of this assessment charge and the other contents of this letter and may be put in possession of the land and allowed to be retained by him subject to the liabilities specified in this letter
 Though the appellant was not a party to the arrangement he was aware of and accepted the arrangement and the condition upon which his grant was confirmed by the Government of India
Had  he not accepted those conditions it was likely that the government would have resumed the grant under the Saurashtra Land Resumption Ordinance No 84 of 1949 which came into force on January 13 1950
The Saurashtra Land Reforms Act came into force on September 1 1951
On January 29 1954 the Government of Saurashtra issued a notification under sec
152 of the Act declaring the appellant to be a Girasdar for purposes of the Act subject to the provisions of sec
18 thereof
By a notification dated July 20 1954 the Saurashtra Government clarified the earlier notification stating that the appellant was a Girasdar subject to the provisions of sec
18 of the Act ie the condition imposed by the government at the time of his recognition that he cannot evict the tenants
In the meantime the appellant had applied to the Mamlatdar Kalawad for an order of allotment of land for personal cultivation under sec
18 of the Act
The application was resisted by the tenants who are the respondents in this appeal
The tenants claimed that they had char rights and that in any event the appellant was not entitled to eject them
The Mamlatdar allowed the application and allotted to the appellant lands out of the holding of four tenants
An appeal from his order was dismissed by the Deputy Collector Eastern Division Halar
On a revision application filed by the tenants the Bombay Revenue Tribunal set aside these orders and dismissed the application filed under sec
All the tribunals concurrently found that the tenants did not hold char rights
The Mamlat dar allowed the application under sec
19 on the ground that the 408 conditions imposed upon the appellant before the passing of the Act did not debar him from taking the benefits under the Act
The Deputy Collector affirmed this order on the ground that by obtaining the order of allotment of lands for personal cultivation the appellant was not seeking to evict tenants by exercising his rights as a landlord
The Tribunal disagreed with the views of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector and observed that as the appellant was aware of and accepted the conditions imposed by the arrangement incorporated in the letter dated November 2
1949 he was bound by them and his rights in the land were limited by the condition that he could not evict the tenants
The Tribunal held that the tenants were entitled to take advantage the conditions under sec
18 of the Act and the application under sec
19 was therefore not maintainable
The appellant then applied to the High Court of Bombay at Rajkot under article 227 of the Constitution challenging the correctness of the order of the Revenue Tribunal
The High Court dismissed the application
It held that the conditions incorporated in the letter of November 2 1949 having been accepted by the appellant endured for the benefit of the tenants under sec
18 of the Act
It also held that the rights of the appellant as Girasdar were restricted by the notification under sec
215 of the Act declaring him to be a Girasdas and the appellant was bound by those restrictions
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under a certificate granted by the High Court
It is not disputed that the Government of India had the power to impose upon the appellant the conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2 1949 and that the appellant is bound by them
The government could refuse to recognise the grant made to the appellant by the ruler of the Virpur State and to annul the grant
Had the government annulled the grant the annulment would have been an Act of State and could not be questioned before the municipal tribunals see State of Saurashtra vs Jamadar Mohamad Abdulla1
Instead of annulling the grant the government elected to confirm it subject to the conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2 1949
The appellant accepted the grant subject to those conditions and is bound by them
The question is whether in spite of the conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2 1949 the appellant is entitled to allotment of land under sec
19 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act 1951
The Act was passed for the improvement of land revenue administration and for ultimately putting an end to the Girasdari system
It makes provisions to regulate the relationship between the Girasdars and their tenants to enable the latter 1 409 to become occupants of the land held by them and to provide for the payment of compensation to the Girasdars for the extinguishment of their rights
Girasdar means any talukdar bhagdar bhayat cadet or mul girasia and includes any person whom the government may by notification in the official gazette declare to be a Girasdar for the purposes of the Act section 2 15
It is common case that the appellant is a Girasdar by virtue of the notification of the Saurashtra Government declaring him to be a Girasdar
The Act overrides other laws
Save as otherwise provided in the Act its provisions have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law or any usage agreement settlement grant sand or any decree or order of any court or other authority section 3
Chapter III regulates the relationship of Girasdar with their tenants
Subject to certain exceptions any person who is lawfully cultivating any land belonging to a Girasdar is for the purposes of the Act deemed to be the tenant section 6
Sections 6 to 17  confer on the tenants certain benefits privileges and immunities in respect of rent cess rate hak tax service termination of tenancy and eviction from dwelling houses
Particularly section 12 provides that no tenancy can be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV or except on certain specified grounds
Section 18 provides Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to limit or abridge the rights or privileges of any tenant under any usage or law for the time being in force or arising out of any contract grant decree or order of a court or otherwise howsoever Section 18 shows that the Act is intended to confer on the tenant fights and privileges which he does not otherwise enjoy or possess under any usage or law in force or any contract grant decree or order of a court or arising in any other way
If the tenant has any fight or privilege apart from the provisions of the Act he needs no protection under the Act
He can claim protection under his existing rights and privileges
His existing rights and
privileges are not limited or abridged by anything in the Act
The conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2 1949 were intended for the benefit of the tenants
The tenants can claim the benefit of the condition that the appellant would not evict them
The condition is annexed to the grant to the appellant
The right or privilege of the tenant arising out of this condition is a right or privilege arising out of a grant within the meaning of sec
Tht expression grant in sec
18 is wide enough to take within its sweep a grant by the government to the Girasdar and is not limited to a grant by the Girasdar to the tenant
410 The next question is whether the rights and privileges of the tenant arising out of the conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2 1949 is limited or abridged by an order for allotment of land to the appellant under sec
19 for personal cultivation
Chapter IV enables Girasdars to obtain allotment of land for personal cultivation
Any Girasdar may file an application for such allotment before the Mamlatdar under sec
19 within certain time
On making the necessary enquiries the Mamlatdar may pass an order making an allotment of land to the Girasdar section 202
After making the order the Mamlatdar has to issue an occupancy certificate to the Girasdar in respect of the deed
section 203
No Girasdar can obtain possession of any land held by a tenant except in accordance with such order section 204
Nothing contained in Chapter IV applies to any land in respect of which a tenant has acquired char or buta hak section 27
Under section 39 the Girasdar may obtain an occupancy certificate in respect of land allotted to him under Chapter IV Section 502 provides for execution of orders of the Mamlatdar awarding possession
Chapter V provides for acquisition of occupant
y rights by tenants
Having regard to sec
301 and the proviso to sec
32b the acquisition of occupancy rights by tenants is subject to an order of allotment to the Girasdar under Chapter IV and any occupancy certificate issued to a tenant ceases to be effective as soon as any agricultural land or any portion thereof is allotted to a Girasdar under Chapter IV either before or after the date on which the occupancy certificate issued to the tenant has become effective
On the strength of the order of allotment of land for personal cultivation under sec
202 the Girasdar is entitled to evict the tenants from the land allotted to him
When the Girasdar applies under sec
19 for allotment of land for personal cultivation he seeks to evict the tenants from the land
Therefore when the appellant filed his application under sec
19 he sought an order which would enable him to evict the tenants in contravention of the condition of his grant that he would not evict the tenants
In view of see
18 nothing in Chapter IV enables him to obtain an order limiting or abridging the rights and privileges of the tenants arising under the condition
The Mamlatdar could not under sec
20  pass an order which would have the effect of limiting or abridging those fights and privileges
The appellant had no right to evict the tenants and the Mamlatdar could not pass an order which would enable the appellant to evict them
The application filed by the appellant under sec
19 was therefore incompetent
The appellant as a Girasdar was subject to the provisions of sec
The declaration in the notification dated January 29 1954 that he was subject to the provisions of sec
18 stated what followed from the express provisions of the Act
Because of sec
411 18 the appellant was subject to the conditions imposed by the Government at the time of his recognition that he cannot evict the tenants
The notification dated July 20 1954 declared the existing disability of the appellant in respect of eviction of tenants
The application filed by the appellant under sec
19 was rightly dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal and the High Court rightly refused to interfere with this decision under article 227 of the Constitution
The appeal is dismissed with costs
GC Appeal dismissed


Summary:
In 1947 the Ruler of Virpur State in Saurashtra granted certain agricultural lands to the appellant
Later these lands were exchanged for others
In 1948 the administration of Virpur State was assumed by the United State of Saurashtra
The Saurashtra Government questioned the grant but the Government of India at a conference with the Ruler recognize it as having been lawfully made to the appellant with the condition that he would not evict the tenants from the lands
The arrangement was set out in a letter dated November 2 1949 from the Political Department the Government of India to the Revenue Department United State of Saurashtra
Though the appellant was not a party to the arrangement he was aware of and accepted the arrangement and the conditions upon which his grant was confirmed by the Government of India
The Saurashtra Land Reforms Act came into effect on September 1 1951E On January 29 1954 the Government of Saurashtra issued a notification under section 152 of the Act declaring the appellant to be a Girasdar for purposes of the Act subject to the provisions of section 18 thereof and this was later by another notification clarified to mean that he was a Girasdar subject to the condition imposed by the Government at the time of his recognition that he could not evict the tenants
In the meantime the appellant made an application to
the Mamlatdar for an allotment ofland for personal cultivation under section 19 of the Act
This application was allowed by the Mamlatdar but the Revenue Tribunal in revision held that the application under section 19 was not maintainable
The appellant s petition before the High Court under section 227 of the Act was dismissed on the grounds that i the conditions incorporated in the letter of November 2 1949 having been accepted by the appellant enured for the benefit of the tenants under section 18 of the Act ii the rights of the Girasdar were restricted by the notification under section 215 of the Act declaring him to be a Girasdar and tile appellant was bound by those restrictions
Against the High Court s judgment the appellant came to this Court
HELD i Had the Government of India annulled the grant made to the appellant the annulment would have been an Act of State and could not be questioned before the Municipal Tribunals
Instead of annulling the grant the government elected to confirm it subject to the conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2 1949
The appellant accepted the grant subject to those conditions and was bound by them
408 F State of Saurashtra vs Jamadar Mohamad Abdulla  referred to
406 ii The conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2 1949 were intended for the benefit of the tenant
The tenants could claim the benefit of the condition that the appellant could not evict them
The condition was annexed to the grant to the appellant
The right or privilege of the tenant arising out of this condition was a right or privilege arising out of a grant within the meaning of section 18
The expression grant  in section 18 is wide enough to take within its sweep a grant by the Government to the Giraffes and is not limited to a grant by the Girasdar to the tenant
409 G H iii On the strength of the order of allotment of land for personal cultivation under section 202 the Girasdar is entitled to evict the tenants
from the land allotted to him
When the Girasdar applies under section 19 for allotment of land for personal cultivation he seeks to evict the tenant from the land
Therefore when the appellant filed his application under section 19 he sought an order which would enable him to evict the tenants in contravention of the condition of his grant that he would not evict the tenants
In view of section 18 nothing in Chapter IV of the Act enabled him to obtain an order limiting or abridging the rights and privileges of the tenants arising under the condition
The Mamlatdar could not under section 20 pass an order which would enable the appellant to evict them
The application filed by the appellant under section 19 was therefore incompetent
4 10 F G