Case: State Of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raja Anand Brahma Shah

the Thomason Despatches). He relies on this statement contained in the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 454/1955, dated November 2, 1962. But this statement refers to the sanad, dated October 15, 1781, and not to the sanad, dated October 9, 1781, or the later sanad, dated November 4, 1803. It appears from the District Gazetteer (p. 255) that as soon as Adil Shah obtained possession of the zamindari, Adil Shah really forfeited his claim to the assigned villages the revenue of which was Rs. 8,001 and as possession had been obtained at the time of the general settlement in 1788 the Governor-General in Council ordered the assignment to be resumed. Adil Shah died in 1794 and the New Raja became involved in monetary difficulties. Mr. Barton, the then Collector, made certain proposals and they were accepted at Calcutta and orders were issued to him to revise the assessment of Agori Bahar in such a way as to give the Raja a net profit of Rs. 8,001 per annum or to allot him in lieu thereof a certain number of villages assessed to that amount. Accordingly, the revision of certain revenue paying villages took place, and in addition to the villages assigned by Mr. Duncan, certain others assessed to a sum of Rs. 4,000 were made over to the Raja. This arrangement brought taluqas Agori and Singrauli into the Rajas possession with the result that he became in 1804 both zamindar and jagirdar or assignee of the Government demand, in taluqas Kon and Agori, Singrauli and 28 villages in Barhar. Paras. 11 to 15 of Roberts report dated January 1, 1847, are to the same effect. 23. It seems to us clear from the above facts that Pargana Agori is still held under the sanad, dated October 9, 1781, and the sanad, dated November 4, 1803. The second sanad is a grant of land revenue. That is definitely a jagir. 24 The learned counsel for the State contends that the fact that Adil Shah asserted a prior title may have been one of the reasons for the restoration of the zamindari but it was in essence a new grant made on political considerations. He further points out that conditions are also laid down in the sanad. Adil Shah was enjoined to make arrangements regarding cultivation and population of the pargana and had to obey the directions of the revenue officer and Raja Mohit Narain Bahadur in this behalf. 25. As stated by this Court in Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan. 1955-2 SCR 303 : (AIR 1955 SC 504 ),"we do not find any sufficient ground for putting a restricted meaning on the word Jagir in Art. 31-A. At the time of the enactment of that Article the word had nearly acquired both in popular usage and legislative practice a wide cannotation, and it will be in accord with sound canons of interpretation to ascribe that connotation to that word rather than an archaic meaning to be gathered from a study of ancient tenures." 26. An inam is explained in Wilsons Glossary thus :"A gift, a benefaction in general, a gift by a superior to an inferior. In India, and especially in the south, and amongst the Marathas, the term was especially applied to grants of land held rent-free, and in hereditary and perpetual occupation, the tenure came in time to he qualified by the reservation of a portion of the assessable revenue, or by the exaction of all proceeds exceeding the intended value of the original assignment; the tem was also vaguely applied to grant of rent-free land, without reference to perpetuity or any specified conditions. The grants are also distinguishable by their origin from the ruling authorities, or from the village communities and are again distinguishable by peculiar reservations, or by their being applicable to different objects.." 27. In our opinion a grant by the British of lands for services rendered to them would be a grant falling within Cl. (a) (i). 28. It seems to us that on the facts of the case the grant was in the nature of a grant similar to a Jagir or inam. The fact that Balwant Singh and Chet Singh held possession of this Pargana for 40 years cannot be ignored. This shows that to all intents and purposes Adil Shab had lost the pargana and it was in effect a fresh grant in the nature of Jagir or inam for services rendered to the British. Adil Shahs assertion to title had not been verified. Although it may be one of the reasons for the grant, it is clear that if it had not been for the grant and its enforcement by the British troops Adil. Shah would not have been able to recover the possession of the Pargana. His title to the pargana would rest on the grant and not the alleged previous title. 29. If it is held, as we do hold, that the area in dispute is a grant in the nature of Jagir or inam and consequently an estate within Art. 31-A (2) the impugned Act can claim the protection of Art. 31A. The notifications, dated June 30, 1953, and July 1953 must therefore be upheld. 30. Mr. A. K. Sen further urges that the acquisition of the estate was not for the purposes of agrarian reforms because hundreds of square miles of forest are sought to be acquired. But as we have held that the area in dispute is a grant in the nature of Jagir or inam, its acquisition like the acquisition of all Jagirs, inams, or similar grants, was a necessary step in the implementation of the agrarian reforms and was clearly contemplated in Art. 31A. 31. In this view it is not necessary to decide whether the area in dispute is a Mahal or covered by S. 3 (8) of the Reforms Act as it existed in 1958 or earlier or any other question which was raised before us. 32.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]14. In our opinion the word including is intended to clarify or explain the concept of land held or let for purposes ancillary to agriculture. The idea seems to be to remove any doubts on the point whether waste land or forest land could be held to be capable of being held or let for purposes ancillary to agriculture15.We must, therefore hold that forest land or waste land in the area in dispute cannot be deemed to be an estate within estate within Cl.(a)(iii) unless it was held or let for purposes ancillary to agriculture. There is no dispute that the cultivated portion of Pargana Agori would fall within Cl. (a) (iii)In this view it is not necessary to decide whether the area in dispute is a Mahal or covered by S. 3 (8) of the Reforms Act as it existed in 1958 or earlier or any other question which was raised before us.