Case: Navinchandra Babubhai Nagarsheth And Ors Vs. Bombay Revenue Tribunal And Ors

Sarkar, J.1. These three appeals concern compensation payable under the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952 to the appellants for abolition of their inams Some of the appellants held shares in the inam village of Wanz and some in that of Dindoli. The appellants had moved the High Court at Bombay by several petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the decision of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal regarding the compensation. The petitions were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment . These appeals are against that judgment under a certificate granted by the High Court.2. The appellants had claimed compensation under several heads based on different grounds but two of them survive. The first is that the appellants are entitled to compensation for loss of assessment payable to them by inferior holders, a special class of tenants holding lands from them. The Act does not expressly provide for compensation in respect of such lands. Sub-section (1) of S. 17 of the Act, however, provides that if any person is aggrieved by the provisions of the Act abolishing any of his rights to or interest in property and if compensation for such abolition has not been provided for, such person may apply to the Collector for compensation. The appellants base their claim on this section. Sub-section (5) of this section makes the right under sub-s. (1) unavailable in a certain case and the question is whether the appellants claim fell within it. Now the sub-section is in these terms:Section 17 (5) : - Nothing in this section shall entitle any person to compensation on the ground that any inam village or inam land which has (sic.) wholly or partially exempt from the payment of land revenue has been under the provisions of this Act made subject to the payment of full assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Code.Clearly this sub-section applies only to a certain kind of claim for compensation in respect of an inam village exempt from payment of land revenue. The appellants say that their inams were not of this kind and so the sub-section does not affect their claim. According to them, their inams consisted of a grant of land revenue only. The nature of an inam depends on the sanad or the terms of the grant. The High Court held on a construction of the sanads that the inams were grants of the villages with exemption from land revenue, because the words of the grant conveyed the soil and rights over trees, water, mines, etc. This view is obviously correct.3. The appellants then said that notwithstanding that the soil had been granted, their inams were none the less of land revenue only. Their contention is that before the grants the tenants in occupation paid revenue to the Government and thereafter to the inamdars and the latter being exempt from the liability to pay it over to the Government, the net result was that the inamdars retained the land revenue and were, therefore, the grantees thereof. This contention is idle. There is nothing to show that there were tenants holding lands in the villages before the grants which were made in 1794 and 1803, respectively, and whether they paid anything and if so, what? Furthermore, what the tenants paid to the inamdars (holders of the inams) after the grants was rent and not revenue; it was for the inamdars to fix the amount of it or forgo it altogether if they so liked. What the tenants paid to the inamdars was not something which was due to the Government which the inamdars kept themselves having been exempted from the liability to pay it over to the Government; it was rent due to the inamdars.4. It was next said that whatever might have been the position earlier, after the introduction of the survey in the villages in 1900 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 what a tenant paid to an inamdar was land revenue. There is no justification for this contention either. No doubt since the introduction of the survey the amounts payable by the tenants to the inamdars were all assessed under the Code. The nature of the assessment payable was not, however, altered thereby nor did it become land revenue. The survey fixed the amount payable by a tenant to the inamdar and gave him certain rights. It also conferred certain benefits on the inamdar in the matter of the realisation of his dues. The fact that the assessment was made in the same way as land revenue made no difference. It did not change the right to the assessment. Notwithstanding all this the inamdar remained the grantee of the soil and a person who was not liable to pay revenue in respect of it and likewise the tenant remained liable as before to pay rent to the inamdar.5. Furthermore, the distinction between the two kinds of grants is well recognised and has been maintained by the Act by specifying in S. 2 (1) (e) that an inam means a grant of a village with exemption from liability to pay land revenue and also a grant of land revenue only. The appellants contention would in effect wipe out this distinction and cannot, therefore, be accepted.6. The appellants then contended that even if their inams were grants of villages exempt from payment of land revenue, sub-s. (5) of S. 17 did not bar their claim because they were not claiming compensation on the ground that the inam villages previously exempted from land revenue had under the Act been made subject to it. They say that they have not been made liable to pay land revenue themselves and are only claiming the loss of the money that they used to collect from the inferior holders, the right to which collection was abolished by the Act. This contention is based on S. 5 of the Act which is set out below:"Section 5(1) - All inam villages or inam lands are and shall be liable to the payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Code and the rules relating to unalienated land shall apply to such lands.(2)(a) An inamdar in respect of the inam land in his actual possession or in possossion of a person holding from him other than an inferior holder, referred to in clause (b) below, or(b) an inferior holder holding inam land on payment of annual assessment only shall primarily be liable to the State Government for the payment of land revenue, due in respect of such land held by him and shall be entitled to all the rights and shall be liable to all obligations in respect of such land as an occupant under the Code or the rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force."7. It seems to me that this contention is also without any foundation. The inamdars right to appropriate to himself the assessment fixed by the survey and collected from the inferior holders existed only because he was exempt from the liability to pay land revenue. If he was not so exempt, then what he collected from the inferior holders would have to be paid over to the Government. It would follow that the loss for which the appellants claim compensation was really occasioned by the lands being subjected to revenue by S. 5(2)(b).The fact that the inamdar has not himself been made liable for the revenue in respect of the lands held by inferior holders makes no difference. The substance of the matter is that the inamdar has been deprived of his right to the assessment from the inferior holders and the inferior holders have been made liable to pay that assessment to the Government. So in actual result the inamdar has been deprived of his right to the assessment because the land has been made subject to payment of land revenue. His claim for the loss of assessment is, therefore, in reality based on the ground that the lands which were free from revenue have been made subject to it. Sub-section (5) of S. 17 does not provide that the bar mentioned in it operates only when land revenue is made payable by the inamdar.8. It also seems to me that any other interpretation would lead to a result which could not have been intended. It is not in dispute that for the loss of rights in respect of lands in his own possession excepting those mentioned in S. 7 or any lands in possession of persons holding from him other than as inferior holders an inamdar is not entitled to compensation. It is admitted that such compensation could not be allowed in view of S. 17(5). It would be difficult to imagine a reason for the legislature to have made a distinction between such lands and lands in the possession of inferior holders.9. The other part of the claim concerns the right to forfeit the inferior holders tenancies for non-payment of rent and the right of reversion in respect of them. These the appellants have no doubt lost. The Collect for asked the appellants to produce evidence in support of their claims under this head.They failed to do so. They could not even cite one instance of the exercise of any such right. It would be impossible to value the loss in respect of them as no material for doing so is on the record nor was furnished by the appellants. No compensation can, therefore, be assessed or awarded for the loss of these rights.

Decision:
0[ds]No doubt since the introduction of the survey the amounts payable by the tenants to the inamdars were all assessed under the Code. The nature of the assessment payable was not, however, altered thereby nor did it become land revenue. The survey fixed the amount payable by a tenant to the inamdar and gave him certain rights. It also conferred certain benefits on the inamdar in the matter of the realisation of his dues. The fact that the assessment was made in the same way as land revenue made no difference. It did not change the right to the assessment. Notwithstanding all this the inamdar remained the grantee of the soil and a person who was not liable to pay revenue in respect of it and likewise the tenant remained liable as before to pay rent to the inamdar.5. Furthermore, the distinction between the two kinds of grants is well recognised and has been maintained by the Act by specifying in S. 2 (1) (e) that an inam means a grant of a village with exemption from liability to pay land revenue and also a grant of land revenue only. The appellants contention would in effect wipe out this distinction and cannot, therefore, beinamdars right to appropriate to himself the assessment fixed by the survey and collected from the inferior holders existed only because he was exempt from the liability to pay land revenue. If he was not so exempt, then what he collected from the inferior holders would have to be paid over to the Government. It would follow that the loss for which the appellants claim compensation was really occasioned by the lands being subjected to revenue by S. 5(2)(b).The fact that the inamdar has not himself been made liable for the revenue in respect of the lands held by inferior holders makes no difference. The substance of the matter is that the inamdar has been deprived of his right to the assessment from the inferior holders and the inferior holders have been made liable to pay that assessment to the Government. So in actual result the inamdar has been deprived of his right to the assessment because the land has been made subject to payment of land revenue. His claim for the loss of assessment is, therefore, in reality based on the ground that the lands which were free from revenue have been made subject to it. Sub-section (5) of S. 17 does not provide that the bar mentioned in it operates only when land revenue is made payable by the inamdar.8. It also seems to me that any other interpretation would lead to a result which could not have been intended. It is not in dispute that for the loss of rights in respect of lands in his own possession excepting those mentioned in S. 7 or any lands in possession of persons holding from him other than as inferior holders an inamdar is not entitled to compensation. It is admitted that such compensation could not be allowed in view of S. 17(5). It would be difficult to imagine a reason for the legislature to have made a distinction between such lands and lands in the possession of inferior holders.9. The other part of the claim concerns the right to forfeit the inferior holders tenancies for non-payment of rent and the right of reversion in respect of them. These the appellants have no doubt lost. The Collect for asked the appellants to produce evidence in support of their claims under this head.They failed to do so. They could not even cite one instance of the exercise of any such right. It would be impossible to value the loss in respect of them as no material for doing so is on the record nor was furnished by the appellants. No compensation can, therefore, be assessed or awarded for the loss of these rights.