Case: Sayed Rehmanmiya Mustafamiya &amp; Others Vs. The State Of Gujarat &amp; Others

payable on all lands held, on the commencement of the Act, as Barkhali lands including Gharkhed, and land allotted under the Act. The provision made in Section 16 was that the lands were liable to payment of land revenue under the provisions of the Code and the Rules made thereunder. In that section, the Legislature did not make reference to any survey or settlement. It only laid down that the land revenue payable was to be as determined under the provisions of the Code and the Rules made thereunder. A similar provision could have been made in Section 19 for superseding the assessment made by the Mamlatdar. Instead, the requirement prescribed by the Legislature was that the assessment by the Mamlatdar was to continue in force until the village is surveyed and settled and not merely until an assessment of revenue payable in respect of the land is determined either under Section 52 of the Code or Chapter VIII-A of the Code.5. This view of ours is further strengthened by a comparison of the language used in Section 19 of the Act and Section 52 of the Code. Section 52 of the Code envisages assessment of amount to be paid as land revenue "on all lands", while Section 19 of the Act refers to survey and settlement of "a village" and not of lands. Obviously, under Sec. 52 of the Code, there could be assessment of revenue on lands without survey or settlement of a village and, when the Legislature, in Section 19 of the Act, used the expression "village is surveyed and settled", it clearly ruled out a mere assessment under Section 52 of the Code which need not follow a survey or settlement of a village. In our opinion, therefore, under Section 19 of the Act, the assessment made by the Mamlatdar under that section itself must continue in force until there is a survey and settlement in accordance with Chapters VIII and VIII-A of the Code.6. In this connection, we may take notice of one more aspect. Even under Section 52 of the Code and Rule 17 of the Rules made thereunder, there is, in fact, no survey at all. All that Rule 17 requires the Collector to do is to classify land into three classes: (1) dry crop, (2) rice and (3) irrigated. These three classes are then to be divided into three sub-classes, good, medium and inferior. Assessment is then to be made on each parcel of land by comparison of similar class and sub-class of land with land of the same class and sub-class situated in the Bombay area apart from areas transferred to Bombay State at the time of Reorganisation of the States in 1956. This procedure does not involve any survey. Survey, as indicated by Chapter III-A of the Land Revenue Rules framed under the Code, requires the settlement officer to examine physical configuration, climate and rainfall, markets, communications, standard of husbandry, population and supply of labour, agricultural resources, the variations in the area of occupied and cultivated lands during the period of previous settlement, wages, prices, yield of the principal crop, ordinary expenses of cultivating each crop, and rental values of lands used for purposes of agriculture. No such survey of any of these factors was required to be done by the Collector when making the assessment of land revenue payable under Section 52 of the Code read with Rule 17. In fact, the provisions of Rule 17 require very limited action by the Collector in classifying lands and comparing lands to be assessed with lands in untransferred area of the Bombay State. Fixing of land revenue payable, on this principle, is also clearly exercise of a summary power which appears to have been conferred on the Collector by Section 52 as a temporary measure until there could be a proper settlement of land revenue after survey in accordance with Chapters VIII and VIII-A of the Code. If such assessment made by the Collector by a more or less summary procedure were intended to be given effect to by the Legislature in the Act, there was no need at all to create another authority in the Mamlatdar to fix assessment by a slightly different summary procedure. It seems to us that the Saurashtra Legislature, in passing the Act, for the temporary period until there could be a regular survey and settlement, created a machinery by granting power to the Mamlatdar to make a summary assessment and that was clearly intended not to be superseded by another summary fixation of assessment by the Collector under Section 52 of the Code.7. The High Court has held that, in substance and in effect, the Collector, in acting under Section 52 of the Code and Rule 17, did make the assessment after survey and settlement. Nowhere did the High Court examine whether any of the steps which are taken in a survey were required to be taken by the Collector at all. The High Court seems to have assumed that the procedure laid down in Rule 17 amounted to survey and settlement. Further, the High Court lost sight of the fact that, under Sec. 52 of the Code and Rule 17 the assessment of land revenue payable was in respect of lands, while Section 19 of the Act envisaged survey and settlement not of individual lands but of a village. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that what the Collector did in 1959 in making the assessment under Section 52 of the Code and Rule 17 amounted to survey and settlement of villages as envisaged in Sec. 19 of the Act. There having been no survey and settlement of the village, the assessment made by the Mamlatdar continued to be assessment for purposes of the Act and the Government was, therefore, not justified in varying the payment of annuity under Section 18 of the Act which should have been continued to be paid in accordance with that assessment.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]4. It is true that the words "surveyed and settled" have not been defined in the Act; but, in Clause (v) of Section 2 of the Act, it is laid down that all words and expressions used, but not defined, in the Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Reforms Act. Again, in Section 2 (33) of the Reforms Act, it is laid down that all words and expressions used, but not defined, in that Act and defined in the Code shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Code. Since the words "surveyed and settled" were not defined in either of these two Acts, we have to look to the Code to find their meaning.will, thus, be seen that, even under the Code, the two words "survey" and "settlement" were not fully defined for all purposes. The definition of settlement was limited by laying down that this word was to connote the meaning given to it in the definition only in Chapter VIII-A. However, the procedure for survey was fully indicated in Chapter VIII, while the procedure for settlement was fully laid down in Chapter VIII-A. It was in this state of law that the Saurashtra Legislature passed the Act in 1951. It is, however, clear that, at the time when the Act was passed, the only manner of survey which was laid down by any law applicable in the State of Saurashtra was that contained in Chapter VIII of the Code and the only manner of settlement was that contained in Chapter VIII-A. There was, of course at the same time, provision contained in Section 52 of the Code for assessment of the amount to be paid as land revenue on all lands; but, in that section, neither the words "survey" nor "settlement" or any of their derivatives was used. In the circumstances, we consider that the submission made by counsel for the appellants that the words "surveyed and settled" used in Section 19 of the Act were intended to refer to the survey and settlement under Chapters VIII and VIII-A of the Code has great force.This view of ours is further strengthened by a comparison of the language used in Section 19 of the Act and Section 52 of theseems to us that the Saurashtra Legislature, in passing the Act, for the temporary period until there could be a regular survey and settlement, created a machinery by granting power to the Mamlatdar to make a summary assessment and that was clearly intended not to be superseded by another summary fixation of assessment by the Collector under Section 52 of the Code.7. The High Court has held that, in substance and in effect, the Collector, in acting under Section 52 of the Code and Rule 17, did make the assessment after survey and settlement. Nowhere did the High Court examine whether any of the steps which are taken in a survey were required to be taken by the Collector at all. The High Court seems to have assumed that the procedure laid down in Rule 17 amounted to survey and settlement. Further, the High Court lost sight of the fact that, under Sec. 52 of the Code and Rule 17 the assessment of land revenue payable was in respect of lands, while Section 19 of the Act envisaged survey and settlement not of individual lands but of a village. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that what the Collector did in 1959 in making the assessment under Section 52 of the Code and Rule 17 amounted to survey and settlement of villages as envisaged in Sec. 19 of the Act. There having been no survey and settlement of the village, the assessment made by the Mamlatdar continued to be assessment for purposes of the Act and the Government was, therefore, not justified in varying the payment of annuity under Section 18 of the Act which should have been continued to be paid in accordance with that assessment.