vil Appeal Nos 1227 to 1230 of 1979
From the Judgment and Order dated 24111978 of the Gujarat High Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos 54 52 53 55 of 1973
B Datta JP Pathak and PH Parekh for the Appellants
RN Sachthey Bimal Roy Jad and Anip Sachthey for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
These are the appeals by special leave from a common judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal Nos
52 to 55 of 1973 and also Letters Patent Appeal No 50 of 1973
It is a common ground that the appellants are the tenants of certain lands which form part of the estate or wanta of a Taluqdar
The question is whether the provisions of Section 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act 1949 are applicable to the lands in question and whether under the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act 1949 which came into effect from 15th August 1950 the said lands became vested in the State and all rights in the said land held by the Taluqdar became the property of the Government
Under the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act inter alia all uncultivated lands excluding the land used for building and other non agricultural purposes vest in the State
Section 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act 1949 runs as fol lows 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 nailas lakes wells and tanks and all canals and water courses and all standing and flowing water 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 as belonging to a taluqdar in a taluq dari 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 499 general or special orders of the Commis sioner to dispose them of as he deems fit subject always to the rights of way and of other rights of the public or of individuals legally subsisting
Explanation For the purposes of this section land shall be deemed to be unculti vated if it has not been cultivated for a continuous period of three years immediately before the date on which this Act comes into force
 The question is whether for the purposes of this section the lands in question were uncultivated lands
It is an admitted position that the lands were leased by the Taluqdar to the tenants
There is also a clear and categorical find ing of facts that these lands had remained uncultivated for a period of 3 years immediately before the said Act came into force
Prima facie it would appear that in view of the said explanation to section 6 the lands must be regarded as uncultivated lands for the purposes of section 6 of the said Act and must be deemed to be vested in Government
Learned Counsel for the appellants however contended that as the lands had been put to cultivation earlier for some time even though not cultivated for continuous three years prior to vesting they cannot be regarded as uncultivated lands
According to learned Counsel if the land is capable of being cultivated it cannot be treated as uncultivated land within the meaning of section 6
He relied on a decision of this Court in State of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal reported in 1980 1 SCR page 233
Our attention has been drawn to the observation made at page 239 of the said re port
After setting out the provision of Section 6 it has been observed as follows 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 taluq dar 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 500 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 charac ter as well as by reason of the Explana tion
It is therefore evident that the determina tion of the question whether a particular category of property belonging to a taluqdar in a taluqdan estate is vested in the Govern ment 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 waste lands  has been joined by conjunctive and  with the expression all uncultivated lands 
They therefore indicate two distinct types of land
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 
Here we have therefore two distinct categories of proporties viz 1 waste lands and 2 uncultivated lands
The contention that the grass lands on hilly tracts which are incapa ble of cultivation were waste lands  or uncultivated lands  within the meaning of section 6 cannot be accepted 
 The said decision of this Court and the observation relied on by the learned Counsel do not come in the aid of the contention made by the learned Counsel for the appel lants
Even according to the appellants themselves the lands were under cultivation for some time prior to the coming into force of the said Act and hence it could not be said that they were uncultivable lands
They were in fact lands which were capable of cultivation and as a matter of fact subjected to cultivation for some time but which as found by the High Court were not cultivated for continuous period of three years prior to the coming into force of the said Act
In these circumstances the said lands are clearly covered by the definition of the expression uncultivated land as set out in the Explanation to section 6
As the said lands were uncultivated lands within the meaning of section 6 they must be deemed to have been vested in the Government and the contention of the appellants to the contrary must be rejected
In the result there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed
There will however be no order as to costs
TNA Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was a member of a joint family with her son
She terminated the tenancy of the predecessor in title of the respondents by a notice dated June 24 1960 giving rise to litigation culminating in the appeal before this Court by the appellant on the question whether the tenant became deemed purchaser of the land in question in terms of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 which had declared April 1 1957 as the tillers  day and that the tenants of the lands who fell within any of the categories described in sub section 1 were deemed to have purchased the land held by them as tenants from their land lords free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on that day
It was contended that in view of the provisions of clause a of subsection 1 of Section 32F of the Act the tillers  day was postponed in respect of the land in ques tion as the appellant was a widow and hence it must be declared that she had terminated the tenancy of the tenant before he became a deemed purchaser of the land
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 11
The proviso to sub section 1 of Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 provides inter alia that the tillers  day would not get postponed where the widow land owner is a member of a joint family one of the members whereof was outside the protected categories mentioned under clause a of sub section 1 of Section 32F of the Act
457 F 12 In the instant case admittedly the son of the appellant who was joint with her did not fall within any of the categories referred to in clause a of sub section 1 of Section 32F of the Act
Hence the predecessor intitle of the respondents became the owner of the said land on the tillers  day as a deemed purchaser and the appellant lost her rights in the said 457 land
Notice given thereafter is of no avail
457 G