Case: Gangadharrao Narayanrao Majumdar Vs. The State Of Bombay And Another With Connected Appeals)

provisions of the Code". Section 17-A provides for the issue of bonds while S. 18 provides for the application of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, to any inam village or inam land or the mutual rights and obligations of an inamdar and his tenants. Sec. 19 provides for making of rules and S. 20 deals with repeals and amendments. 5. It will be seen from this analysis of the Act that the main provisions are sections 4, 5 and 7. So far as S. 7 is concerned, there is provision for compensation with respect to lands vested in the State by virtue of that section. But no compensation is provided for the rights extinguished by Ss. 4 and 5. As we have seen already the main right of an inamdar was to hold his lands on payment of land revenue which was less than the full assessment and it is this right which has been abolished by Ss. 4 and 5 and the inamdar will now have to pay the full assessment. No compensation has been provided for the loss which the inamdar suffers by having to pay the full assessment. 6. This brings us to the first contention. On behalf of the appellants it is urged that what Ss. 4 and 5 extinguish is the right of the inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference between the full assessment and the quit-rent, and this is not an estate within the meaning of Art. 31-A of the Constitution. The relevant provisions in Art. 31-A for present purposes are these :"31-A (1) - Notwithstanding anything contained in Art. 13, no law providing for - (a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights, or (b) ...... .......... ......... ......... (c) ...... .......... ......... ......... (d) ...... .......... ......... ......... (e) ...... .......... ......... ......... Shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Art. 14, Art. 19 or Art. 31 : Provided .......... ......... ......... ...... (2) In this article - (a) the expression estate shall, in relation to any local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in the area, and shall also include any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant and in the States of Madras and Kerala any janmam right; (b) the expression rights in relation to an estate shall include any rights vesting in a proprietor, sub-proprietor, under-proprietor, tenure-holder, raiyat, under-raiyat or other intermediary and any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue." 7. It will be clear from the definition of the word "estate" in Art. 31-A (2)(a) that it specifically includes an "inam" within it.As such it would be in our opinion idle to contend that inam are not estates within the meaning of the expression "estate" for the purpose of Art. 31-A.The Act specifically deals with inams and would thus be obviously protected under Art. 31-A from any attack under Art. 14, Art. 19 or Art. 31. It is, however, urged that the right of the inmadar to appropriate to himself that part of full assessment which was left over after he had paid the quit-rent to the Government is not a right in an estate. This contention also has no force. Inams being estates, the right of the inamdar to retain part of the full assessment over and above the quit-rent payable to the Government arises because he holds the inam-estate. The right therefore can be nothing more than a right in an estate. Besides the definition of the expression "rights" in Art. 31-A (2)(b) makes the position clear beyond all doubt, for it provides that the rights in relation to an estate would include any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue. Even if it were possible to say that the right of the inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference between the full assessment and the quit-rent was not a right in an estate as such, it would become a right in an estate by virtue of this inclusive definition for the inamdars right could only be a right or privilege in respect of land-revenue. Besides, it is clear that the right in question falls under S. 3(5) of the Code and as such also it is an estate under Art. 31-A. 8. The contention of the appellants therefore that inams dealt with by the Act are not covered by the expression "estate" in Art. 31-A fails. Their further contention that their right to retain the difference between full assessment and quit-rent is not a right in an estate also fails. The Act therefore when it extinguishes or modifies the rights of inamdars in the inam estates is clearly protected by Art. 31-A. 9. The next contention is that the Act does not provide for compensation and is therefore ultra vires in view of Art. 31. We find, however, that the Act has provided for compensation under S. 10 so far as that part of inam lands which are vested in the State by S. 7 are concerned. Further S. 17 provides for compensation in a possible case where anything has been left out by S. 7 and the inamdar is entitled to compensation for it. It is true that by sub-sec. (5) of S. 17 no compensation is to be paid for the loss to the inamdar of what he used to get because of the difference between the quit-rent and the full assessment. It is however clear that Art. 31-A saves the Act from any attack under Art. 31 which is the only Article providing for compensation. In this view of the matter the constitutionality of the Act cannot be assailed on the ground that it provides no compensation for extinction of certain rights. 10. Ther

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

Explanation:
0[ds]7. It will be clear from the definition of the word "estate" in Art.A (2)(a) that it specifically includes an "inam" within it.As such it would be in our opinion idle to contend that inam are not estates within the meaning of the expression "estate" for the purpose of Art.e Act specifically deals with inams and would thus be obviously protected under Art.A from any attack under Art. 14, Art. 19 or Art. 31. It is, however, urged that the right of the inmadar to appropriate to himself that part of full assessment which was left over after he had paid thet to the Government is not a right in an estate. This contention also has no force. Inams being estates, the right of the inamdar to retain part of the full assessment over and above thet payable to the Government arises because he holds the. The right therefore can be nothing more than a right in an estate. Besides the definition of the expression "rights" in Art.A (2)(b) makes the position clear beyond all doubt, for it provides that the rights in relation to an estate would include any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue. Even if it were possible to say that the right of the inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference between the full assessment and thet was not a right in an estate as such, it would become a right in an estate by virtue of this inclusive definition for the inamdars right could only be a right or privilege in respect of. Besides, it is clear that the right in question falls under S. 3(5) of the Code and as such also it is an estate under Art.. Thecontention of the appellants therefore that inams dealt with by the Act are not covered by the expression "estate" in Art.r further contention that their right to retain the difference between full assessment andt is not a right in an estate also. TheWe find, however, that the Act has provided for compensation under S. 10 so far as that part of inam lands which are vested in the State by S. 7 are concerned. Further S. 17 provides for compensation in a possible case where anything has been left out by S. 7 and the inamdar is entitled to compensation for it. It is true that by. (5) of S. 17 no compensation is to be paid for the loss to the inamdar of what he used to get because of the difference between thet and the full assessment. It is however clear that Art.A saves the Act from any attack under Art. 31 which is the only Article providing for compensation. In this view of the matter the constitutionality of the Act cannot be assailed on the ground that it provides no compensation for extinction of certain rights.