Civil Appeal No 1381 of 1968
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 22 2 1967 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No 121960
M N Phadke M N Shroff and section P Nayar for the appellant
V section Desai and D Goburdhan for the respondent
981 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J
This appeal by special leave raises a short question as to whether the Watan held by the respondent at the date of coming into force of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans Abolition Act 1950 was a Watan of the soil or a Watan of land revenue only in respect of certain lands situate in village shirambe Taluka Koregaon District North Statara
If the Watan was in respect of the soil the respondent would not be entitled to any compensation for the resumption of the Watan lands but if it was a Watan of land revenue only the respondent would have a claim for compensation for a a sum equal to ten times the amount of such land revenue under section 62 of the Act
The respondent claimed that the Watan was of land revenue only and not of the soil and he was therefore entitled to compensation as provided in section 62 of the Act and filed a suit for recovery of Rs 15074 4 0 by way of compensation against the State of Maharashtra in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Satara
The claim was decreed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division and on appeal by the State of Maharashtra the High Court affirmed the view taken by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division
The High Court construed the Sanad granted by the British government in favour of the ancestors of the respondent in the light of the surrounding circumstances and particularly the entries contemporaneously made in the alienation register and came to the conclusion that the grant embodied in the Sanad was not a grant of the soil but was merely a grant of land revenue and the respondent was therefore entitled to claim compensation the basis laid down in section 62 of the Act
The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division and affirmed by the High Court preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court
We have carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court and we find ourselves completely in agreement with the conclusion reached there
The judgment of the High Court is a well reasoned judgment and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra has not been able to show any infirmity in it
The opening part of the Sanad clearly shows that it was issued in recognition of a grant which was already made in favour of the ancestors of the respondent
The Sanad undoubtedly used the word lands  to describe the subject matter of the grant but the word land  is defined in Bombay Act 2 of 1863 to include share of land revenue and this meaning should apply in the construction of the word land  in the Sanad since the Sanad was apparently granted pursuant to the enquiry made under Bombay Act 2 of 1863
The description of the subject matter of the grant as lands  in the Sanad would not therefore necessarily indicate that it was a grant of the soil
In fact this description standing alone would rather indicate that it was a grant of land revenue only since grant of the soil would ordinarily be accompanied by words such as Darobast  or Jal  Taru  Truna  Kastha  and Pashan  Moreover the entries contemporaneously made in the alienation register also showed that the grant referred to in the Sanad was a grant of land revenue only and not a grant of the soil
The High 982 Court has discussed these entries and it is not necessary for us to reiterate what has been so ably said by the High Court
The earlier documents relied upon by the respondent have also been referred to by the High Court and they clearly go to show that the grant was of land revenue and not of the soil
This position was in fact accepted by the Revenue officers all throughout and that is evident from the order of the District Deputy Collector Satara dated 19th August 1937 exhibit 28 and the decision dated 28th February 1951 exhibit 331 given by the Collector of North Satara allowing an appeal filed by the respondent
We are therefore of the view that the High Court was right in holding that the grant in favour of the ancestors of the respondent was a grant of land revenue only and not a grant of the soil and since the Watan held by the respondent at the date of the coming into force of the Act was a Watan of land revenue the respondent was entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs 15074 4 0 under section 62 of the Act
It is indeed difficult to understand as to why the State of Maharashtra should have preferred the present appeal at all
The judgment of the High Court was pre eminently a correct judgment based on a careful appreciation of the evidence on record and it did no more than adopt a construction of the grant which had throughout been accepted as the correct construction by the Revenue officers over the last 75 years
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra in fact found it impossible to assail the reasoning of the judgment
It is evident that the appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra without giving much thought to the question and caring to enquire whether the judgment of the High Court suffered from any errors requiring to be corrected by a superior court
We do not think it is right that State Governments should lightly prefer an appeal in this Court against a decision given by the High Court unless they are satisfied on careful consideration and proper scrutiny that the decision is erroneous and public interest requires that it should be brought before a superior court for being corrected
The State Governments should not adopt a litigious approach and waste public revenues on fruitless and futile litigation where there are no chances of success
It is unfortunately a fact that it costs quite a large sum of money to come to this Court and this Court has become untouchable and unapproachable by many litigants who can not afford the large expense involved in fighting a litigation in this Court
It is therefore all the more necessary that State Governments which have public accountability in respect of their actions should not lightly rush to this Court to challenge a judgment of the High Court which is plainly and manifestly correct and drag the opposite party in unnecessary expense part of which would in any event not be compensated by award of cost
The present appeal is an instance of the kind of unnecessary and futile litigation which the State Governments can and should avoid
We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs
SR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent by virtue of the sanad granted to his ancestors by the British Government claimed in respect of certain lands situated in village Shiramba Taluka Koregaon District North Satara compensation under section 62 of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans Abolition Act
1950 for the resumption of the lands by the appellant
The suit claim of Rs 15074 4 0 being a sum equal to ten times the amount of such land revenue was decreed by the trial court
On appeal by the State the High Court affirmed the same
after construing the sanad granted by the British Government in favour of the respondents  ancestors and other relevant records as it was a watan of land revenue and not in respect of the soil
Dismissing the State s appeal by special leave to this Court  HELD 1 The High Court was right in holding that the grant in favour of the ancestors of the respondent was a grant of land revenue only and not a grant of the soil and since the watan held by the respondent at the date of the coming into force of the Act was a watan of land revenue the respondent was entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs 15074 4 0 under section 62 of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan Abolition Act 1950
982B C 2 The sanad undoubtedly used the words lands to describe the subject matter of the grant but the word land is defined in Bombay Act II of 1863 The Exemption From Land Revenue No 1  Act 1863 to include share of land revenue and this meaning would apply in the construction of the word land in the sanad since the sanad was apparently granted pursuant to the enquiry made under Bombay Act II of 1863
The description of the subject matter would not therefore necessarily indicate that it was a grant of the soil
In fact this description standing alone would rather indicate that it was a grant of land revenue only since grant of the soil would ordinarily be accompanied by words such as Darobast  or Jal  Taru  Truna  Kastha  and Pashan 
981F H Their lordships deprecated the litigious approach adopted by the State Government and observed State Governments which have public accountability in respect of their actions should not lightly rush to this Court to challenge a judgment of the High Court which is plainly and manifestly correct and drag the opposite party in unnecessary expense